Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Empress State Building, Earl's Court

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Works (1) for what purpose his Department has leased the 28-storey Empress State Building from City Centre Properties; and what are the financial terms and duration of the lease; (2) what will be the annual cost to public funds arising out of the use of the Empress State Building by Government Departments; and what annual saving or increased cost will result from these departments moving from other accommodation.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): My Department has taken a lease of the Empress State Building at Earl's Court in order to replace certain leased buildings where the leases cannot be renewed on expiry or could be renewed only on much less favourable terms. On the question of financial terms and costs, I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) on 18th July. I can say, however, that the leasing of this large office building away from the expensive Central London area will lead to considerable savings to my Department.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the Answer which he gave to my hon. Friend for Harrow. West (Mr. John Page) does not

cover my second Question, No. 5? I asked my right hon. Friend the cost to public funds, not the lease, and whether it would, in fact, be a saving or an increase in expenditure. Could he give me that information?

Lord John Hope: I am not prepared to give my hon. Friend the information, in so far as the amount charged for the rent would emerge, for the reasons which I gave last time, but, overall, the facts are as I stated. This will result in a saving.

John Lilburne

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of recent historical evidence of the part played by the Levellers in the establishment of Parliamentary freedom and democracy in this country, he will make arrangements for the establishment of a suitable memorial to John Lilburne and his associates within the Palace of Westminster.

Lord John Hope: In matters such as this, I am guided by the wishes of the House.

Mr. Foot: Does not the Minister appreciate that the minorities of today, even the very small minorities, very often become the majorities of tomorrow? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would induce a healthy respect for this excellent truth if we paid proper tribute to the first Englishman who dared preach the doctrine of democratic Parliament?

Lord John Hope: As far as I am aware, the Levellers were primarily an extra-Parliamentary group, and I am not sure that it would be a good thing to go too wide.

Mr. Foot: The Minister is absolutely misinformed on the subject. There were quite a number of spokesmen for the view of the Levellers in Parliament at that time. When the right hon. Gentleman has examined his history and read, say, the recent book of Mr. H. N. Brailsford and got his history more accurate, would he reconsider the matter?

Lord John Hope: However accurate or inaccurate my history may be, the Answer which I have given to the House must be my answer.

Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will be guided by the wishes of the House. Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give us an opportunity to express our views, because I think that if he were so guided he would reach a conclusion such as is urged upon him by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot)?

Lord John Hope: I will consider that.

Cholwichtown Stone Row

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Works why he agreed to the proposal of English China Clays Limited that they might obliterate Cholwichtown Stone Row, an ancient bronze-age monument in the Dartmoor National Park.

Lord John Hope: This stone row, which is by no means one of the best on Dartmoor, is not to be destroyed: it will simply be buried. I was satisfied that there was no other site would could reasonably be used for dumping the spoil from the china clay workings.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision, because burial is usually the end of things, and will he take into account that this is a scheduled monument of anything from 3,500 to 4,000 years' old and that there are alternative sites for the spoil?

Lord John Hope: It is quite literally true—it really is—that this monument will not be destroyed by burial, unlike some other things which were in the hon. Gentleman's mind. These stones really are not by any means the best examples of their kind.

Royal Palaces (Expenditure)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Works whether, in the interests of the national economy and the new need to curtail public expenditure, he will now stop the £50,000 improvement work contemplated on IA, Kensington Palace; and if he will reappraise other expenditure on Royal Palaces with a view to effecting further economies.

Lord John Hope: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "No." With regard to the second part, the maximum economy is exercised over the Royal

Palaces Vote, as with all the Votes for which I am responsible.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister recognise that very soon now the whole nation will be asked to make sacrifices in the national interest? Why, therefore, should a very tiny, highly privileged and, in the main, useless minority —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask that supplementary question. It is out of order. Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you referring to the original Question or to the supplementary question, because, if it is to the supplementary question you refer, I would gladly withdraw—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's supplementary question was out of order.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, may I have an opportunity to rephrase the questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman's question is out of order, so I have to go on to call the next Question. Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is within the recollection of almost every hon. Member that, when a supplementary question has been ruled out of order, the hon. Member asking the original Question has been given the opportunity to ask a supplementary question which is in order, and I am simply seeking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has, I think, some illusion. In fact, I called the next Question.

Mr. Hamilton: Then, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the original reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Stonehenge

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works what are his present proposals for improving the public facilities for visitors to Stonehenge.

Lord John Hope: Facilities are at present provided in three rather obtrusive structures. Because of the increased


number of visitors these are no longer adequate. I therefore wish to tidy up the site and provide proper facilities in one building, which, unlike the present structures, would be invisible from the Stones. But the National Trust, which owns the land, feels unable to agree. I regret that I can make no further headway without the co-operation of the Trust.

Mr. Fletcher: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he appreciate that there is increasing public interest in Stonehenge; that greater facilities are required, but that it is equally desirable that any new building should be so sited as not to destroy the natural detachment and isolation of the site? Will he do his best to continue his negotiations with the National Trust with a view to getting an agreed solution?

Lord John Hope: I will, indeed. I should tell the House that the Ancient Monuments Board for England supports my proposals as being a definite improvement of what is there now, just as I myself support the Board's long-term view that the perfect solution involves the closure of A.344 where it passes the monument. In the meantime, the Board agrees that what I propose to do is an improvement on what is there now, but I cannot go on with it until I have the agreement of the Trust.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend set my mind at rest? I am rather afraid that the intention is to bury Stonehenge.

Lord John Hope: There is no more danger of my burying Stonehenge than that that same fate awaits my hon. Friend.

Mr. K. Robinson: Since the closure of A.344 is the only satisfactory solution to a very intractable problem, will the Minister have urgent discussions with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to see whether his right hon. Friend cannot press ahead with this rerouteing?

Lord John Hope: I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that this must lie some way ahead, but I certainly do not mean to lose sight of it. It is the right answer. Meanwhile, I cannot see why we should not do as well as we can temporarily, and that is precisely what I have asked to be allowed to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Greater London

Mr. D. Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is yet in a position to announce his proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the Greater London area.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister far Welsh Affairs what consideration he has now given to the representations made to him by local authorities with regard to the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London.

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Report of the Royal Commission on London Government.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Government have the Royal Commission's Report and the representations of local authorities on it under consideration, but I regret it will not be possible to make an announcement before the Recess.

Mr. Smith: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of when he is likely to bring forward the Government's proposals; or, at least, to introduce a White Paper on the subject? Furthermore, will will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many local authority employees are becoming increasingly apprehensive about how their future will be affected by these proposals, if they are accepted, and that local authorities are finding it extremely difficult to recruit new staff?

Mr. Brooke: Whether or not the proposals are accepted, I think that it is desirable to keep the period of uncertainty to a minimum. Therefore, in response to my hon. Friend's main supplementary question, I certainly reply that the Government will announce their decision as soon as they properly can.

Mr. Reynolds: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the decision will be announced as soon as it properly can be and, at the same time, says that it will not be before the Summer Recess, is he


anticipating that the statement will be made while the House is in Recess, or is it meant to await the return of the House before making the statement? In addition to the present effect on local authority staff recruitment, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London political parties will shortly be preparing for next year's elections? If there are to be major changes there will, presumably, be no elections, so the sooner we know the better.

Mr. Brooke: I think that the political parties can take it for granted that there will be elections next year, but I really cannot say when I shall be able to make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be better to have a debate in this House before the Government make their decision, so that they can make it in the light of the opinions then expressed?

Mr. Brooke: There has been nearly a year during which it has been possible for the Oppposition to seek a debate on the question. It seems better now that the Government should reach their decision and make their announcement, and for that to be debated.

Local Government Act, 1933 (Section 76)

Mr. Talbot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now make a statement on the operation of Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933, in view of the continued uncertainty of those engaged in local government.

Mr. Brooke: I intend to make a statement in due course, but I regret I cannot do so yet.

Mr. Talbot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 4th July, 1961, 3rd May, 1961, 28th June, 1960, 29th March, 1960, and 17th November, 1959, we had Answers almost precisely similar to the Answer just given, and can he not give us a definite date when he will make a statement on this matter, which looks like dragging on like the trial of Warren Hastings?

Mr. Brooke: I regret that I cannot give a definite date. In any case, I

have no power whatsoever to interpret the law, and any change in the law would naturally require a Bill.

Green Belts

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will categorise the exceptions permitted by the Government to its policy of maintaining the green belt.

Mr. Brooke: This information is set out in Circular 42/55, a copy of which I sent to my hon. Friend, following his Question on 3rd May.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt among my constituents in the Chigwell urban district and the Epping and Ongar rural district lest there be further encroachments on the Metropolitan green belt, which they value very much? Will he remove any misapprehensions that Government Departments and public institutions are in a privileged position in this matter?

Mr. Brooke: Nobody is in a privileged position, though my hon. Friend will recollect from that Circular that the purposes for which buildings might be erected in the green belt include
… agriculture, sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds or other uses appropriate to a rural area.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether it is now his policy that new schools should be built in a green belt whenever possible, instead of in areas designated for building development; and what consideration he has given to the effect on the green belts of the present financial incentives to local education authorities to acquire land for schools in the green belt because of the much lower compensation payable.

Mr. Brooke: Schools ought not to be built in a green belt simply because the land there is cheaper. Most schools need to be near to the homes of the boys and girls, and this factor alone will normally rule out a site in a green belt. But there are cases where the most suitable site in all the circumstances may be in a green belt, and I would not think that


green belt zoning should be held to preclude absolutely such a use as a school.

Mr. Digby: May I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he does not regard it as generally consistent with his green belt policy that two or three schools should grow up side by side in what is said to be a green belt?

Mr. Brooke: It is not my policy to encourage schools in a green belt, but there may be cases where the green belt is really the most desirable place for a school, and if it is surrounded by extensive playing fields it might not be an offensive intrusion there.

Dorell Glass Company Limited (Planning Decision)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what inquiries he has made of the Shoreditch Borough Council concerning ex gratia compensation for financial loss by the Dorell Glass Company Limited, arising out of planning decisions, in view of his circular to local authorities on the considerations governing such matters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I wrote to the hon. Member on 7th June fully explaining the position. The only change since then is that the borough council has decided to pay an additional £39 18s. 0d. in respect of surveyors' fees.

Mr. Iremonger: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, and for the trouble that he has taken in the matter, may I ask him whether he is aware that my constituents have been brought very nearly to the verge of bankruptcy by the interpretation of policy by this council, and could he see his way to making further representations to that authority?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene here, since the compensation payable is only discretionary. Of course, my hon. Friend's constituents did not object to the compulsory purchase order.

Cholwichtown Stone Row

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he

will hold a public inquiry into the application of English Clays Ltd for permission to obliterate the ancient Stone Row at Cholwichtown, in the Dartmoor National Park.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) has already been in touch with me on the same subject. My right hon. Friend gave his decision on this matter on 9th May.

Mr. Hayman: Can the Minister say whether he will reconsider his decision because, after all, Dartmoor is a National Park and is something of a right to the nation? This is a wealthy company which could very well site the spoil heap elsewhere. Surely an ancient monument of this kind should be respected.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend cannot reconsider his decision now it is taken. The National Parks Commission was consulted before the decision was taken.

Drainage and Sewerage, Onneley

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the insanitary smell at Onneley, near Crewe, due to the lack of proper drainage and sewerage; and if he will consult with the local authority about ways and means of removing this nuisance and introducing a reasonable standard of sanitation.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries of the local authority, and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Swingler: While bearing that in mind, would the hon. Gentleman take note that several years have been spent trying to bring about a limited land drainage scheme to which the Ministry of Agriculture would contribute? This has failed owing to the difficulty of getting local agreement among the farmers. Could the hon. Gentleman's Department take the initiative and propose a proper sewerage scheme for this rural area?

Sir K. Joseph: We must have more facts. We will go as quickly as we can.

Aluminium Scrap Plants (Fumes)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs


whether he will issue a Command Paper giving a report on the work carried out by the Alkali inspectorate in conjunction with the aluminium scrap plants industry; and what results have been obtained in diminishing the fumes emitted by such plants.

Mr. Brooke: I would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to my Chief Alkali Inspector's Annual Report for 1960, presented to Parliament last month, which records the position reached in England and Wales by the end of 1960. His next Annual Report will record progress during 1961.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of what he has told me in previous Answers, the results of the Inspectorate's efforts in Derby are nil? Is that due to the fact that there are net enough inspectors, that their powers are inadequate or that new legislation is required to deal with this evil of air pollution?

Mr. Brooke: Their powers are adequate and the number of inspectors has been increased, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look alt the inspector's report he will see that more experience of some other tentative methods of remedying the troubles is needed before we can he quite sure what is the best course to follow.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have looked at the report. Will the Minister come to look at the fumes emitted by Denby Metals Ltd.?

Mr. Brooke: I will accept that from the right hon. Gentleman.

Property (Compulsory Purchase)

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is satisfied with the way in which local authorities are acquiring property under the threat of compulsory purchase orders, or by means of compulsory purchase orders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I have not received many complaints on this matter; and no compulsory purchase order has effect unless the appropriate Minister decides to confirm it. The basis of compensation is no

different whether a property is bought by compulsory purchase order or not.

Mr. Cleaver: Is the Minister aware that certain practices take place where there is a threat of compulsory purchase? Is he aware, for instance, that the City of Birmingham, when acquiring property and having to evict an owner, frequently charges £500 if alternative accommodation is found? Would he not agree that this is most unfortunate?

Mr. Brooke: I think I know what is in my hon. Friend's mind, but the position is that I have no jurisdiction over the compensation which owners receive under a compulsory purchase order. That is settled, or can on appeal be settled, by the Land Tribunal and I must not trespass on the Tribunal's ground.

Mr. Cleaver: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the whole question should be looked into.

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly examine further any information which my hon. Friend sends to me, but I have not anything before me at the moment and, as I say—and it should be widely known—if there is a dispute about compensation, then an appeal lies to the Land Tribunal and the aggrieved person can take advantage of that.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is it not true that, while the Minister has no control over the amount of compensation to be paid, neither has Birmingham Corporation? As the Minister has said, the appeal lies to someone outside both the Ministry and local Government.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, but I would add that advice has been given to local authorities that if they are unable to reach agreement on the price to be paid for a property which they wish to acquire and they are not actually exercising compulsory powers, they should refer the matter to the Land Tribunal so that a proper decision can be arrived at.

Public Lavatories (Turnstiles)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he has refused to accept a deputation from the


National Council of Women on the prohibition of the use of turnstiles in public lavatories.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member is misinformed. I did not refuse to see a deputation, but suggested that the Council should in the first place approach the local authority associations. It has done so, and has now asked to see me; I am arranging to meet it.

Mrs. Castle: While welcoming the Minister's belated agreement to meet this deputation from the National Council of Women, may I ask him whether he will now accede to the desperate plea of a large number of women's organisations that he should take action in this matter? Will he either support my Private Member's Bill abolishing turnstiles or introduce similar legislation himself to the same effect?

Mr. Brooke: I understand that a new Clause on this subject has been tabled to the Public Health Bill, so there seems to be plenty of potential legislation about. The National Council of Women is coming to see me this week and, with respect to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), I should prefer to say nothing more at this stage until I have seen that deputation, which I am looking forward to meeting.

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now state the composition of the delegation which he has agreed to meet regarding turnstile entrances to ladies' public lavatories.

Mr. Brooke: I understand from the National Council of Women that the deputation will include representatives of that Council and of the British Federation of University Women, the British Rheumatism and Arthritis Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds, the Royal College of Midwives, and the Women's Co-operative Guild.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the large number of women's organisations represented on this delegation, this is obviously a matter of great importance to all women in this country? In view of his answer to an earlier supplementary

question to the effect that he preferred to say and do nothing until after he has met this delegation, and since two new Clauses on this point have been tabled for consideration during the Report stage of the Public Health Bill on Friday morning, which will naturally come before Parliament before he meets the deputation, will he reconsider this matter?

Mr. Brooke: I am extremely anxious to find a solution of this genuine problem which will be satisfactory to everybody, but I also want to meet all these important bodies when they come to see me.

Planning Appeal, Saffron Walden

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what grounds he concluded, when deciding the planning appeal of Messrs. D. Heath & Son against the Saffron Walden Rural District Council, that there was need for the production of chalk in the area.

Mr. Brooke: What I actually said was that chalk from the appeal site would make a useful contribution to an area which is partly dependent on pits lying at a distance. But, as I made clear in the House when the case was debated in May, my decision on the appeal did not turn on this. It turned on whether there would be serious nuisance from chalk dust blowing on to neighbouring land. Once I was satisfied that there would not, there was no reason for withholding planning permission.

Clean Air Act, 1956

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made in the five years to 30th June, 1961, in securing implementation of the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 1956, notably in the establishment of Smoke Control Areas in black areas denoted in the Beaver Report.

Sir K. Joseph: In the black areas of England and Wales, over 623,000 premises and over 102,000 acres are now covered by confirmed smoke control orders. Over 128,000 more premises and over 29.000 more acres in these areas are covered by orders submitted for confirmation. These


figures, which are correct to 30th June, indicate a substantial start, but continued vigorous use of all the Act's provisions is needed.

Mr. Nabarro: While this is impressive progress in the first five years, will my hon. Friend recognise that the whole of the policy for clean air is being vitiated by the fact that no progress is being made in the abatement of diesel oil exhaust fumes? As there is divided executive responsibility between the Ministers of Transport and Housing and Local Government, cannot we have a combined policy to rid us of this public menace?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot accept that the clean air policy is being vitiated for this reason, but consultations are taking place on the subject.

Alkali Inspectorate

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what improvement has occurred in the effectiveness of the Alkali Inspectorate and associated facilities in his Department during the five years to 30th June, 1961, since the Clean Air Act reached the Statute Book; and whether he will make a statement upon the adequacy or otherwise of current alkali arrangements.

Sir K. Joseph: The annual report shows how many distinct problems there are in this field. While in most cases the necessary techniques are known and are being applied, there are some processes which cannot in the present state of knowledge be entirely without undesirable emissions. Research continues and the co-operation of all concerned is unstinted. To deal with its increased responsibilities, the staff of the Inspectorate in England and Wales has been increased from 10 in 1956 to 25 now. My right hon. Friend has in mind extending the Alkali Acts by order to cover certain additional processes, where control is now on an informal, though satisfactory basis.

Mr. Nabarro: Having regard to the very great increase in chemical production and associated processes in this country, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, notwithstanding the increase in staff among the Alkali Inspectorate, it is

likely to be sufficient to enable the members of the staff to tackle their formidable duties in all parts of the country?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that a number of manufacturing processes are converting to smokeless techniques and a number of other undertakings, particularly gas and coke works, are concentrating in fewer hands.

Roads, Oxford (Inquiry)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will announce his decision on the Oxford roads inquiry when the House reassembles after the Recess.

Mr. Brooke: I cannot yet say when I shall be able to announce my decision, but I will do so as soon as I can.

Mr. Lipton: Can the Minister give an assurance that he will neither come to a decision nor announce his decision while the House is in recess, because of the very important issues involved, especially if he finally decides to sanction the pernicious proposal to drive a road through the Meadows? Before coming to a decision, will he also have a word with the Chancellor of the University of Oxford about it?

Mr. Brooke: Having a word with people after public inquiries is just what I am not allowed to do and do not want to do. I should not like to give an undertaking that in no circumstances will I announce my decision on this matter before the House reassembles, because there are many people who are extremely anxious for a decision one way or the other to be reached. What I will say to the hon. Member is that, after a decision is announced, a very long procedure has still to be followed and it will probably be several years before a single sod is dug.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everybody will breathe a sigh of relief if he can bring to an end this inter-collegiate road warfare at Oxford in good time and once and for all?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not my right hon. Friend recall having a word with the Minister of Agriculture


after the public inquiry on the chalk case?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend cannot have been present when I said in the House, in the early morning of 17th May, that I reached my decision that that appeal should be allowed because there appeared to be no substantial agricultural or amenity objection to it. I let the Ministry of Agriculture know that that was my view. I am quite sure that it was proper for me to do that, and the Ministry of Agriculture had no comment or objection to raise.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Housing Loans (Interest Rates)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what additional help he will give local authorities to offset the latest increase in interest rates on public works loans for housing purposes and on loans to house buyers affected by the rise in interest rates.

Mr. Brooke: It is not Government policy to insulate housing from the market cost of borrowing.

Mr. Allaun: That is no help at all. Is not this the fourth increase in a series? Is the Minister aware that, because of the resultant high rents, many people living in tragic housing conditions are having to refuse council houses and, indeed, in certain cities even with Tent rebate schemes the top fifteen or twenty with priority on the list are having to forgo their chances of a house.

Mr. Brooke: Certainly no one in the borough which I represent, where there is an effective differential rent scheme, ever has to refuse accommodation offered because the rent is too high.

Subsidies

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will list the fifty local authorities with the largest populations which, under the Housing Bill, are likely to receive an annual subsidy of £8 instead of the present £22 per house, and the fifty largest to receive £24 instead of £22.

Mr. Brooke: As the rate of subsidy payable will depend in the first instance upon the state of a local authority's housing revenue account at the end of March, 1962, I have not at present sufficient information to make reliable forecasts about individual local authorities; their own treasurers are best qualified to advise them what rate they are likely to receive initially.

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but the Minister surely must have prepared such figures when telling us in Committee that the increases would balance the cuts. Is the Minister aware that this list would show that Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, with terrible housing situations, are to have their subsidies slashed, while Bournemouth will benefit? How can the right hon. Gentleman defend such a gross injustice?

Mr. Brooke: This has been fully debated. If Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle do not qualify in the first instance for more than £8 subsidy, that is because the test shows that they have considerable potential financial resources which they could mobilise by charging more realistic rents.

Mr. M. Stewart: The matter has been debated a good deal, but the Minister has never answered this point. When preparing the Bill, he must have had some idea about the answer to my hon. Friend's Question. Why cannot we have the information as to which authorities he thinks will gain and which will lose so that we may judge the matter in the light of the facts?

Mr. Brooke: During debates on the Bill I gave a broad indication—and I stick to it—that half the local authorities will qualify initially for the £24 and half for the £8. But that is a very different matter from that raised by this Question, which asks me to specify one hundred particular authorities. That I could not do.

Slum Clearance, Birmingham

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made with slum clearance in Birmingham since his visit to the city in mid-March.

Mr. Brooke: Since my visit, I have confirmed thirty-one Birmingham slum clearance orders, comprising more than 1,000 houses. I understand that in the same period the corporation has demolished some 700 unfit houses and reconditioned a further 650.

Mr. Howell: What have you done about it since on 21st March—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will put myself in order. What has the Minister done since he visited Small Heath in the middle of a by-election—for the purpose of ensuring that I did not come here—when he said that he had seen property in Birmingham such as he did not know existed, and that he thought that that sort of thing
had come down years ago. It appals one that children should be playing around them. They have got to come down.
Since the sight which he saw at Small Heath appalled him—and I agree with that feeling—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what emergency action he has taken since he returned to Westminster the next day to help Birmingham to get rid of its slums? Can he give us a guarantee that no reduction in slum clearance will be proposed later this afternoon?

Mr. Brooke: I saw the property to which I was referring, not on that occasion, but on an earlier visit to Birmingham, in company with the Birmingham Corporation. Since then I have been giving the Birmingham Corporation all the help that I can, some of which is set out in the Answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. I hope that Birmingham will press on with slum clearance.

Leasehold System, Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what reply he has sent to the protests concerning hardship caused by the operation of the leasehold system in South Wales; and whether he will make a statement;
(2) what steps he has taken to collect evidence regarding hardship caused by

the operation of the present leasehold laws in Wales; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: All protests or evidence sent in have been acknowledged, and my right hon. and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I are having them examined to see whether they do demonstrate hardship. He has been making inquiries through the solicitors' profession also. As I said in the House on 12th July, if hon. Members have any evidence of a specific character which seems to them to prove hardship, I am very ready to consider it.

Mr. Thomas: is the Minister aware that there has been a storm of indignation following his statement that there was no evidence of hardship caused by the leasehold system in Wales? Can he indicate how long it will be before he and the Attorney-General are able to reach a conclusion on the evidence, which I know that they have received, of grievous hardship being caused in Wales by the operation of the leasehold system?

Mr. Brooke: Since the debate, I have received only twenty-one communications. What I am trying to discover is cases of actual hardship. In the debate, the hon. Member quoted the case of a man who, he alleged, was suffering hardship because his rent had been increased from 1s. to 11 s. 7d. a week, which did not seem to me to be evidence of hardship.

Mr. Thomas: I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with many more than twenty-one cases of extreme hardship, and I will gladly do so today if he is willing to see me. Is he aware that all his hon. Friends who represent constituencies in South Wales say in public that they also support leasehold enfranchisement and that he stands alone, disowned by the Welsh Conservative Party, on this matter?

Mr. Brooke: I have stood alone before. My concern here is to get at facts. To use phrases like "a storm of indignation" does not help unless people produce actual cases of hardship following from the action of ground landlords.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister saying that, even though there is no hardship


—of course, it can be demonstrated that there is—the system is fair as between landlord and tenant? If so, he will be disowned by everyone in Wales.

Mr. Brooke: I am saying that up to the present the Government see no cause for amending the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which considerably improved the position of the occupying lessee. However, if hon. Members have further evidence to submit to me, I, together with my right hon. and learned Friend, will be glad to examine it.

Mr. Thomas: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Colonial Development Corporation (Consolidated Goldfields Ltd.)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the financial reorganisation, and in view of the importance of maintaining local good will for the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation, he will reconsider the decision of the Corporation to insist on its rights as secured creditors of British Guiana Consolidated Goldfields Limited being given priority over other small creditors in the area.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I understand that the Corporation has authorised the Receiver to make a number of ex gratia payments to creditors of the company. It is expected that the Corporation will shortly dispose of its residual assets and that the company will remain in operation.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, which, I think, will be very welcome in the West Indies, may I ask whether he is aware that it would be much easier for the Colonial Development Corporation to build up the kind of local good will that is essential if the Government would relax some of the financial restrictions which they impose upon the Corporation?

Mr. Fraser: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE WEST INDIES

Citrus Industry

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the official citrus negotiations now taking place with a West Indian delegation.

Mr. H. Fraser: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 20th July to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

Mr. Henderson: Is not it a fact that these negotiations have been concluded? In view of the fact that British orders for concentrated orange juice from the West Indies are to be cut by nearly 50 per cent., will the Minister consider ways and means of averting what may be a disastrous effect upon the West Indies citrus industry?

Mr. Fraser: I understand that the negotiations have not been completely concluded and that there is to be a further stage of negotiation, at which the Colonial Office will doubtless be brought in.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Financial Assistance

Mr. Marquand: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement about economic aid to be provided to Tanganyika after independence; and how far this will help the government of that territory to fulfil its development plans for the period 1961 to 1964.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants or loans are being made to Tanganyika to assist with her three-year development plan.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I have been able to put improved proposals by Her Majesty's Government for continuing financial assistance after independence to the Prime Minister of Tanganyika. But as these are being considered by the Tanganyika Government I am not yet in a position to give details.

Mr. Marquand: When does the Secretary of State expect to inform the House about this? Are we not being kept


waiting a very long time? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Press statement made by Mr. Julius Nyerere, one of the ablest and most friendly Prime Ministers towards this country in Africa? Has he not seen the expression of regret and despair made, too, by Mr. Julius Nyerere? Can the Secretary of State offer any hope that the proposals of which Mr. Nyerere was then speaking will be modified before he makes his next statement?

Mr. Macleod: I have made it clear that I have put forward improved proposals. For myself, I would be quite ready to give details of them, but the Prime Minister of Tanganyika prefers not to do so at this stage and, of course, I agree with him. I will, however, make as full a statement on this matter as I can in the debate which we are to have later today.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that Tanganyika was promised generous aid for its £24 million development plan? Will my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of concentrating British aid in the earlier years of the plan and forming a consortium with the United States and West Germany to finance the later stages of the plan?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, those two latter points are very much in my mind. Indeed, it is, perhaps, rather the phasing than the amount of the assistance we give that creates the more difficulty.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Secretary of State mean that his proposals which he has been putting to the Prime Minister of Tanganyika are the Government's final word, or does he mean that after the Tanganyika Government have considered them, he will be prepared to continue negotiations with them?

Mr. Macleod: Of course, we should be very glad to look again if Mr. Nyerere came back to us with new suggestions. In any event, we have said that we would study the development and the phasing of these loans and grants after a reasonable interval.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will that affect the amount of the grant?

Mr. Macleod: It could do. The matter that affects Tanganyika most, however, is how she will be able to go ahead with

her three-year development plan. Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not only the amount of the loans and so on that one gives, but the phasing of them in the early years, that is important.

KUWAIT

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Ruler of Kuwait to London to discuss with him plans for the withdrawal of British forces from Kuwait.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. Any discussions with the Ruler can take place through Her Majesty's representative in Kuwait.

Mr. Hughes: Is there not an urgent need to reduce military expenditure overseas? Could not something be done to speed up the withdrawal from Kuwait? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ruler of Kuwait would be very welcome in the City of London, because he has £300 million invested there and he would be the right man in the right place at the right time?

The Prime Minister: In regard to the removal of our troops, as the hon. Member knows the forces there have been considerably reduced and, of course, we are urgently seeking ways by which we will be able to make a withdrawal without the threat to Kuwait being increased.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister state by how much our forces have been reduced and how many troops remain, in order to clear up the confusion which appears to exist in this matter? Can he also say whether any approach has been received from the Ruler of Kuwait since Kuwait joined the Arab League?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, I would rather not state the number of troops which remain. An announcement has, however, been made about some which have been withdrawn. With regard to the second part of the question, we are, of course, in the closest touch with events. For instance, we welcome very much the admission of Kuwait to the Arab League. That may enable us to find a way out.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman learning the lesson, which might be of value to some of his supporters, that it is a great deal easier to put troops in than to take them out?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We had that experience in Jordan, but we were able to accomplish our task and successfully to make a withdrawal. I hope that it will be the same thing again.

Mr. Shinwell: As it is now clear from the statements made by the Minister of Defence and by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air that the number of our forces is very limited indeed, what is the purpose of retaining them in that area when it is quite impossible for them to deal with any act of aggression?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman rather over-simplifies that question. I would rather leave it where it is.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for all members of the Government making public statements when Parliament is not sitting to submit them first to him for approval.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to discuss economic conditions for the association of the United Kingdom with the European Common Market at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Conference in September: and whether decisions will be taken on these conditions by Her Majesty's Government before that conference.

The Prime Minister: Relations with the European Economic Community will no doubt be one of the subjects for discussion at this meeting. As regards the second part of the Question, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the statement that I intend to make on Monday.

Mr. Jay: But as this conference is to be held in September, anyway, and it is now the end of July, might it not be wiser for the Government to await the conference before making further decisions on these issues?

The Prime Minister: I told the House that I intended to make a statement and I propose to do so.

Mr. Eden: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a report in The Times today of the warning from the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India that India's export programme will be affected and her loan repayment plans upset if Britain joins the European Economic Community? Would not this have extremely serious consequences for our invisible exports?

The Prime Minister: I should prefer not to discuss this question. We shall have a statement on Monday and a two-day debate, and it will be better to discuss it then.

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek an early personal meeting with President de Gaulle to discuss Great Britain's relations with the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: I have had several useful meetings in the past with President de Gaulle. I am always glad of an opportunity to meet him.

Mr. Healey: While accepting that the Prime Minister's remarks are unexceptionable in that respect, may I ask whether he is aware that about three weeks ago, in a speech in Metz, President de Gaulle said that Britain's entry into the Common Market would be welcomed only if it was unconditional? Would the Prime Minister therefore not agree that it would be unforgivable if we were to enter into negotiations with the Common Market, which are bound to impose a dangerous strain on our existing links with the Commonwealth, unless there are real prospects of agreement in the end? In view of that, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should try to see President de Gaulle as soon as possible to find out whether his speech at Metz represents his final position?

The Prime Minister: All these matters will be discussed, but I really would


prefer not to pursue the point at the moment. I do not think that it would be very wise to do so.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the Prime Minister make clear to the House that the Government do not intend to involve themselves in any real commitment, even as to negotiations, until they have consulted the House of Commons and ascertained the views of the House?

The Prime Minister: I think that all these matters will arise in the course of our discussions next week.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that, in issuing a White Paper on the measures taken by the parties to the Treaty of Rome in implementation of its articles on common organisation and institution, he will include the declaration on steps towards political unity issued by the Heads of State of the Common Market countries on 18th July.

The Prime Minister: In reply to Questions on 11 th July, I said, not that I would issue a White Paper, but that I would make available in the Vote Office copies of the Progress Reports issued by the European Commission. This has been done, except for the latest report which is now printing. I am arranging for copies of the Declaration to which the Question refers to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Warbey: While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that heads of the Common Market countries have now explicitly stated that they are seeking political unity in order to strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider again whether it would be wise for this country to enter into an organisation whose avowed aim is to perpetuate the division of Europe and to intensify the cold war?

The Prime Minister: Those are points which no doubt the hon. Member will make in debate. I do not think that they arise out of this Question.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (CONTROL)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take, in the light of the recommendations of

the Plowden Committee, to secure effective Government machinery for taking collective decisions with regard to the control of public expenditure.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement at the end of Questions which will be relevant to this matter.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the Plowden Report amounts to a condemnation of the Government's failure in ten years of Tory rule to plan the economy effectively, and that this failure has produced the present crisis?

The Prime Minister: Those are matters which no doubt the hon. Member and others will deal with in the two-day debate which we are to have tomorrow and the next day.

Mr. H. Wilson: But does the right hon. Gentleman remember that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he pledged himself to cut Government expenditure by £100 million, since when it has gone up by £1,200 million?

The Prime Minister: I think that I succeeded in my efforts during that period. Of course, Government expenditure is rising. The Plowden Report does not say that it should not rise. It says that it should be related to gross national product.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Food Parcels

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the figures for food parcels sent from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland during May and June.

Mr. H. Fraser: The figures for postal packets are 1,389,300 and 1,114,140 respectively.

Mr. Teeling: Can my hon. Friend enlarge at all on those figures and say whether they are more or less than for the previous month? Can he also say Whether the actual parcels are in any way similar to the food parcels which we used to send abroad or used to receive from America?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot enlarge on those figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Sea Fisheries Compensation (Scotland) Act, 1959

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the oases, and give the circumstances of each case, where seizure of fishing gear by Her Majesty's fisheries cruisers was not followed by conviction or by prosecution; and if he will state in each case the amount of compensation for loss and damage which was paid under the Sea Fisheries Compensation (Scotland) Act, 1959, or otherwise.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): There has been only one case since the Sea Fisheries Cornpensation (Scotland) Act, 1959, became law where seizure of fishing gear by one of my Department's vessels has not been followed by prosecution and conviction. This was the case about which the hon. and learned Member asked me a Question on 18th July when I informed him that I had been advised that there was no liability against the Department and that the claim for compensation had therefore been refused.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this amounts to Star Chamber conduct and is repugnant not only to English law but to Scottish law? Will he see that it does not occur again?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. and learned Member knows very well that the procedures followed have been strictly legal and proper.

Hydro-Electric Schemes

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive a report from the Committee on the future of hydro-electric schemes in Scotland; and whether all further developments are to be held up until its conclusions are reached or whether there will be an interim report where schemes are now held up.

Mr. Maclay: I regret that it is not possible at present to say when the Committee's report is likely to be available. I am, however, considering with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board how its generation requirements over the next few years can best be met.

Mr. Woodburn: May we at least have a guarantee that this further development will not be held up until the Committee reports, which I understand is not likely to be this year?

Mr. Maclay: The Committee, for very good reasons, is taking longer to report than I had hoped, but I am considering very carefully with the Hydro-Electric Board its programme for electricity generation.

Private Property (Collection of Rates)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received a letter from the Society of Procurators of the Central District of Fifeshire regarding the collection of rates by landlords of private property on behalf of local authorities under the Rating of Small Dwellings House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911; what was the nature of his reply; and what action he will take in the matter.

Mr. Maclay: The letter was received on 13th July. It represented that the valuation limits under the Act of 1911, below which house occupiers pay rent and rates together, should not be raised; and further, that amending legislation should be introduced to terminate the collection of rates by owners of small dwelling-houses. The reply, dated 20th July, stated that I do not propose at present to introduce legislation on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Financial Aid)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his official discussions with Sir Donald Macintyre, Minister of Finance of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, regarding financial aid by Her Majesty's Government to the Federation.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): As announced in the official statement on 13th July, the United Kingdom Government have offered a loan of £5 million to the Federal Government for the purchase of United Kingdom goods and services. The loan is to provide funds


towards the development programmes of the Federal and South Rhodesian Governments over the next two years.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, even at this late hour, he will whisper into the Chancellor's ear that we hope that his statement this afternoon will not mean any restriction on aid to under-developed countries?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend heard that whisper

Mr. Callaghan: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair shares to give a loan of £5 million to the Federation for two years and to restrict Tanganyika, with its much greater poverty, to £3½ million for five years?

Mr. Barber: That is another question.

Protective Tariffs

Mr. Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the loss to the Revenue in this financial year of a 50 per cent. reduction, from 1st August, of all United Kingdom protective tariffs.

Mr. Barber: The estimated yield from the duties charged under the Import Duties Act, 1958, for the current financial year is £155 million of which £103 million is estimated to relate to the period from 1st August to the end of the financial year. The cost of halving all protective tariffs would depend on the extent to which imports increased as a result of such reductions.

Mr. Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced such a cut this afternoon it might actually be worth the cheer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was given earlier when he entered the Chamber?

Mr. Barber: Any questions on trade policy are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Japanese Trade Fair

Mr. Teeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade, how much money he will be making available for the pro-

motion of the official British stand at the forthcoming Japanese Trade Fair in 1962; and when it is proposed that preparations should begin.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): It was originally intended that there should be a display of British machine tools at this Fair, mounted by the Board of Trade in collaboration with the Machine Tool Trades Association. On the advice of the Embassy and with the support of the industry, this display will now be staged at a specialised fair at Osaka in the autumn of next year.

Mr. Teeling: My right hon. Friend does not tell us how much money will be spent on this. Is he aware that the British community in Japan is feeling very unhappy about the way the British Government are trying to prepare for this Fair?

Mr. Erroll: The cost to the Government of the machine-tool display will be about £11,000. If any other industries in addition to the machine-tool industry wish to participate in this Fair we shall be very glad to discuss matters with them.

ECONOMIC SITUATION

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's Statement

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the economic situation.
I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I make a fairly detailed statement today. I am arranging for copies of it to be put in the Vote Office later this afternoon, at about half-past four, I hope. I think that this procedure will have the advantage that the House and those hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate on Wednesday and Thursday will have made available to them the text of my statement, and, incidentally, it will curtail my speech tomorrow.

INTRODUCTION

In my Budget speech on 17th April I referred to the unsatisfactory balance of payments and the probable expansion of home demand with its effect upon costs, and upon our competitiveness. I provided for a very large surplus of over


£500 million above the line, but I clearly indicated that I thought the situation might require further measures. I asked for two new powers—the regulators.

In the three months since the Budget, home demand has continued to increase and is likely to increase even more than was then foreseen. There are labour shortages in most areas. Investment is rising strongly. The building industry already has more demand upon it than it can satisfy, and parts of the engineering industry are coming under increasing pressure.

Simultaneously with the increase of pressure on our domestic resources, we are faced with a critical external situation. This is the third successive year in which our overall balance of payments has been in deficit, and this is, clearly, not a situation which can be allowed to continue.

In 1960, the deficit on current account was about £350 million and there was also a net movement overseas of capital funds, by way of Government loan and private investment, of about £200 million. This was not reflected in the reserve figures because of a large flow of funds to London. Indeed, during 1960 the reserves rose by £177 million and, in addition, we strengthened our position with the International Monetary Fund to the tune of about £130 million.

During the first half of 1961 our current account was still in deficit though at a substantially lower rate than last year's rate. There have, however, been heavy withdrawals of short-term balances and, in spite of the Ford transaction and the prepayment of German debt, our reserves of gold and dollars have fallen by about £164 million over the past six months. This fall would have been much greater but for the special arrangements made with the central banks.

If rising personal demand and rising investment demand are not matched by increased production, the burden falls on the balance of payments. We have less for exports and we import more. In addition, prices go up, our competitiveness suffers, and it becomes more difficult to sell our goods abroad.

In my view, therefore, our aims at the present time should be as follows: First, we should maintain investment in productive industry with a view to the long-term growth of the economy. At the same time, we must make ourselves more competitive. Both are vital for a long-term improvement in the balance of payments.

Secondly, we must see that public expenditure is brought under better control.

Thirdly, we must take action designed to protect our position in the immediate future.

The proposals which I shall now outline are, in part, long-term and matters to which I have been giving consideration for some time; in part, they are required by the exigencies of the present situation.

GROWTH, PROFITS, WAGES AND SALARIES

I shall deal, first, with growth in the economy. The controversial matter of planning at once arises. I am not frightened of the word. One of the first things I did when appointed Chancellor was to ask for a plan of the programme for development and expenditure in the public sector for five years ahead. I referred to the problem as affecting the economy as a whole in my speech in the economic debate last February. I have thought about it a great deal since and discussed it with representatives of both sides of industry. In addition to plans in the public sector, including those of the various nationalised industries and plans for certain industries in the private sector, developments in the economy as a whole are studied by a number of bodies.

These include the Economic Planning Board, presided over by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, the National Production Advisory Council on Industry, over which I preside, and various other advisory councils. I think that the time has come for a better coordination of these various activities. I intend to discuss urgently with both sides of industry procedures for pulling together these various processes of consultation and forecasting with a view to better co-ordination of ideas and plans.

I stated some time ago, in February, that I thought that an annual increase of 3 per cent. in the gross national product was feasible, but only if we have a 6 per cent. annual expansion of exports.


I want to discuss with both sides of industry the implications of this kind of target for the various sectors of the economy.

To suggest that British industry is generally inefficient gives a totally false picture. We have many go-ahead and progressive concerns whose performance matches that of similar ones anywhere else in the world. In addition, in the field of exports, bodies like the Western Hemisphere Export Council and the Export Council for Europe are doing excellent work. But in substantial areas of industry there is room for a greater readiness on the part of both sides for radical changes in outlook and methods. This will be assisted, in my view, by the reductions in tariffs which should come from current negotiations. Much more effort is still needed in the training of skilled labour. A determined attempt is needed to deal with restrictive practices which are out of date. A start was made with the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, dealing with one aspect, but there is much more to be done by both sides of industry.

Today, I want to deal in particular with one aspect of the drive towards lower costs. The wages and salaries bill for 1960–61 was about £1.000 million, or 8 per cent. higher than in 1959–60. Over the same period, incidentally, company profits fell by about £13 million. Personal incomes other than wages and salaries—rents, dividends, interest and income from self-employment—rose by about £450 million, or 6½ per cent. Gross dividends formed £161 million of this second figure—a 20 per cent. increase. Over the same period, national production in real terms rose by £650 million, or by about 3 per cent.

These are the figures: £1,450 million increase in personal income against £650 million increase in production. They do not make sense. Of course, one has to deduct tax and savings from the first figure to get the amount actually spent, but the second figure has to provide not only for increased personal consumption but also for increased public expenditure, increased private investment and exports. These figures reveal in the simplest form what is our present difficulty, and what it is all about. We are cashing in ahead of production, and, in the process, making ourselves uncompetitive.

Profit margins are now being squeezed to some extent, but in some cases they are still too high.

With regard to dividends, although it is true that gross they represent only 7 per cent, of the figure for wages and salaries, and net of tax even less, they have increased substantially. In present circumstances, I do not consider that a further general increase in them in the coming year is justified.

TAX-FREE PROFITS

Before I deal with wages and salaries, I want to say something about those profits which escape taxation. I have already explained my practical objections to a conventional capital gains tax. However, that does not affect my view that certain profits at present tax free should be brought within the existing system of taxation. I said so in my Budget speech and again the other day. I have made sufficient progress in this matter to be able to say definitely that in next year's Budget I shall be bringing forward measures designed to impose a clear liability to tax over a wider field than at present.

The activities I want to see taxed are of two main kinds. The first kind are those seeking short-term profits, which are more in the nature of speculation than investment, for example, short term transactions in shares and securities. The second kind are, in effect, trading activities—often in real estate—hut cloaked in such form as to escape liability under the present law.

WAGES AND SALARIES

Turning to wages and salaries, of course, increases in real wages and salaries are desirable, but only provided that national productivity increases sufficiently, always remembering that increases for those who work in fields such as the social services have to be found out of increases of productivity in industry. As the figures which I gave a little time ago show, at present we are heavily over-drawing on our productivity account. In my view, there must be a pause until productivity has caught up and there is room for further advances. It is not possible in any general statement to cover every particular case. Where commitments have already been entered into, they should be met.

Subject to this, however, a pause is essential as a basis for continued prosperity and growth. In those areas for which the Government have direct responsibility we shall act in accordance with this policy. The Government ask that the same lines should be followed elsewhere both in the private sector and in those parts of the public sector outside the immediate control of the Government.

In itself, however, such a pause is certainly not a lasting solution to the problem of rising costs and prices. A pause must mark the beginning of a new long-term policy. That policy is that increases in incomes must follow and not precede or outstrip increases in national productivity. During the pause we must work out methods of securing a sensible long-term relationship between increases in incomes of all sorts and increases in productivity.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

I now come to public expenditure. It is now so great that unless it is brought into a proper relationship with the resources likely to be available in the long term, our chances of sound growth will be gravely prejudiced. I also want some immediate contribution from the public sector towards lightening the present overload on the economy. In making these adjustments, we must see that priority is given to whatever directly affects national efficiency, and that we do not wastefully disrupt programmes under way. We shall, therefore, not interfere with the investment that the nationalised industries require for attaining their financial targets and providing essential supplies and services.

The sums required for assistance to industry will fall away next year, and we shall apply very strict criteria to any new proposals. We shall have to look critically at the level of agricultural support during the 1962 Review. In the services provided by central and local Government, we shall have to ask for desirable proposals to be postponed or abandoned. Authorisations and loan sanctions to local authorities will have to be considerably reduced.

The house purchase scheme under the 1959 Act, which is now costing about

£40 million, will, in consultation with the Building Societies Association, be suspended.

Next year, unless checked, Government supply expenditure will rise substantially. I intend to do my utmost to keep this increase at a level not more than 2½ per cent. in real terms, which should be within our expanding capacity to carry; that is to say, about £125 million above the estimates for 1961–62.

This increase in Supply expenditure over 1961–62 Estimates will be broadly offset by the savings below-the-line following the completion of the steel loans and the suspension of the house purchase scheme. Taking it all together, I would put the effect of the decisions which we have taken as being to reduce the load in 1962–63 by some £175 million compared with what it would have been otherwise, to which can be added £125 million on account of the savings below the line or about £300 million in total.

I do not wish to create any false impression about this; except for the below-the-line items these are not cuts on this year's figures; they are part of the process of containing future expenditure for which I ask the House's wholehearted support.

With regard to this year's expenditure, it would be a waste of resources to delay work in progress or to postpone necessary maintenance. Nevertheless, there will be a stringent re-examination to see what savings can be made in administration and in other respects.

On one particular matter affecting public expenditure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will tomorrow inform both sides of the Burnham Committee that, while recognising that teachers have a good case for some increase in pay, the Government cannot agree to the size of the increase in salaries for teachers in primary and secondary schools as proposed in the Burnham Committee's provisional agreement. The Minister is also concerned about the distribution of the proposed increases. He will, therefore, ask the Committee to make some reduction in the increase and will give them his views on how the revised sum might best be distributed to meet the needs of the education service.

My right hon. Friend will also discuss with the constituent associations how in future the Government's views can best be made known to the Committee at an earlier stage. The present procedure is not satisfactory.

OTHER MEASURES TO RELIEVE STRAIN ON BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Before I deal with the private sector at home, I wish to say something about overseas expenditures.

Government expenditures overseas—defence, aid and administrative—are running at present at a rate which will certainly rise to some E480 million next year and quite possibly, on present trends, to £500 million. I do not believe that we can sustain such a level. My aim is to hold that figure down to £400 million in the year 1962–63. This compares with £330 million in 1958–59.

DEFENCE

It is right that we should carry heavy burdens for the sake of maintaining our commitments to our friends and allies around the world. But the defence programme must be carefully examined, particularly in relation to the overseas payments which it involves. The Minister of Defence has put in hand another review of the whole of this programme to see what can be done to lighten the burden.

In fulfilment of commitments to N.A.T.O., we are spending some £80 million a year across the exchanges in Western Europe. Of this sum, over £65 million goes on the maintenance of our forces in Germany, in accordance with our obligations under the revised Brussels Treaty. I have come to the conclusion that the strain upon the balance of payments caused by this expenditure cannot be allowed to continue next financial year. We have, therefore, invited the North Atlantic Council to review the financial conditions under which our forces are maintained. Such a request is provided for under the terms of the Treaty. It does not affect our determination to stand by our N.A.T.O. obligation in the defence of West Berlin and the review will relate to the next financial year.

OVERSEAS AID TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Assistance to underdeveloped countries from United Kingdom Government funds has risen steadily from some £80 million in 1957–58 to £150 million in 1960, and disbursements are expected to increase still further this year to about £180 million. Most of these disbursements are being made under commitments to other Governments and to international organisations, and these commitments will be honoured. I am bound, however, to take steps to contain the increase and to see it does not rise much above the present level. There is no question of cutting back, but even to sustain this level is a considerable challenge. It will not be easy. The figure of £180 million compares, I say again, with a figure of £80 million in 1957–58 when our balance of payments was better.

OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

Finally, there is the cost of our diplomatic and various administrative services overseas. The total expenditure on these is not large in comparison with that of the commitments which I have been discussing. But, even so, these services must make their contribution towards the reduction in total expenditure overseas which our present situation demands. I look for a saving here of 10 per cent. in the financial year 1962–63.

PRIVATE INVESTMENT OVERSEAS

I now come to private investment overseas. The volume of investment in the non-sterling area, which is subject to control, has been rising steadily. It is true that it produces earnings in the long run. But these earnings do not always benefit the balance of payments in the short term—partly because of the tendency to invest further in the overseas enterprise concerned and partly because of local restrictions on remittances. I therefore propose a more severe test than at present. The test for new investment in the non-sterling area will be that it will produce clear and commensurate benefits to United Kingdom export earnings and to the balance of payments.

REMITTANCE OF OVERSEAS PROFITS PROFITS

The powers to control investment in the non-sterling area apply equally to investment made out of profits earned over-


seas by British companies and their subsidiaries. I am not satisfied that in all cases an adequate proportion of profits earned overseas is being repatriated to this country. I propose to request United Kingdom firms operating overseas to look at their policies in order to ensure that a higher proportion of earnings is remitted home. So far as non-sterling investment is concerned, I propose to reinstitute on a selective basis the examination of company accounts by the exchange control authorities to ensure that this policy is followed.

MONETARY AND CREDIT POLICY

I now come to measures designed to affect the private sector here at home. The Bank of England have called upon the clearing banks for further special deposits. In the case of the London clearing banks the call is for 1 per cent., of which half is to be deposited by 16th August and the balance by 20th September, 1961. In the case of the Scottish banks the call is for a percentage equal to one-half of that called for from the London clearing banks. In making this call the Governor of the Bank of England has made it clear that it is the intention that the impact should fall on advances.

The banks have been asked that, when reviewing existing commitments or considering new lending, they should be particularly severe on proposals related to personal consumption, including finance for hire purchase, as well as finance for speculative building, property development, or for other speculative purposes, so that all possible room should be left for the finance vitally needed for exports and productive industry. I am sure that, despite the difficulties, the clearing and Scottish banks will as usual give their full co-operation.

The Governor is also drawing the attention of the other United Kingdom banks, including the foreign and overseas banks and the accepting houses, to the action taken with the clearing and Scottish banks. He will see the British Insurance Association and ask that the insurance companies should observe a similar policy in their lending. I look to these institutions, also, to give me their support. It is not my intention to force a down-turn of private investment in productive industry. I am not pro-

posing any change in the initial or investment allowances. At the same time, the demands made by private investment, particularly on the building industry, are growing rapidly and it is right that some less essential forms of development should be postponed. I do not rule out further measures if they appear necessary.

The Government do not intend to alter the present hire-purchase restrictions.

BANK RATE

With my approval, the Bank of England is announcing a rise in the Bank Rate from 5 per cent. to 7 per cent. I have agreed to this partly because of the need to restrain credit internally, and partly because of the unsettled international situation.

The effect of all this will be to make credit more expensive and more difficult to get. The impact will be felt particularly on credit for personal consumption and property development.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE SURCHARGE

I have also decided that I must take action under Section 9 of this year's Finance Act. The Treasury has, therefore, made an Order, the Surcharge on Revenue Duties Order, the effect of which is to put a surcharge of the full permitted amount of 10 per cent. on the range of Customs and Excise duties referred to in the Finance Act, and an Purchase Tax. The surcharge will take effect from midnight tonight.

I wish to make it clear that, taking Purchase Tax, for example, the increase is the equivalent of 10 per cent. of the existing rates, not an addition of a further 10 per cent. to the existing rates. There is some misunderstanding about this. Thus, for goods now chargeable at 5 per cent. the increase would, in effect, raise the rate to 5½ per cent., not to 15 per cent.

The Order will be laid forthwith, and hon. Members will see in the explanatory note the full list of duties to which it relates. I must stress that the effect on prices of individual articles will be a matter for the traders concerned to determine.

The effect of the surcharge will be to withdraw purchasing power from the economy at the rate of £210 million per year. It can, of course, be reduced or


removed at any time, but if it were maintained till the end of the current financial year, it would fortify the surplus above the line to the extent of £130 million.

I.M.F. DRAWING

Finally, I have decided to take action to fortify our reserves by a substantial drawing from the International Monetary Fund. This is being put in hand. The actual amount will be announced shortly when the discussions with the Fund are concluded. I would remind the House that such drawings have to be repaid within a period of three to five years, and this means that it is all the more necessary for the policies and measures I have outlined to be pursued with resolution.

I believe that these measures will protect our position in the immediate future and will form the basis for a long-term improvement in the balance of payments. They mark the first steps, following upon the five-year review, to establish a better relationship between public expenditure and the national resources. They will enable essential investments in productive industry to continue. At the same time, they will assist to restore our competitive power, to expand our exports, and to promote soundly based growth in the economy.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is, of course, a truism to say that the whole tone of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was utterly inconsistent with the prospectus on which the Government got back to office. Perhaps it will take the smirk off the Prime Minister's face if he is reminded that the boasts of prosperity on which he won the last General Election are now being sustained by borrowing sixteen years after the war.
The Chancellor's statement lasted for half an hour, and I want to put these questions to him. First, is he aware that his whole statement has shown the classical bias of the Government against public services and public expenditure, while, despite his warning, their tenderness to the private sector? The Chancellor referred to labour shortages. Will he tell us why, despite labour shortages and a record investment programme over the last year, there has still been no increase in productivity? How does he explain that?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that rewards should not go ahead of the increase in productivity necessary to earn those rewards. Wild he tell us, then, why we had nothing from him in his proposal about scrapping the Surtax concession in the last Budget?
Turning to the specific proposals, is he aware that the most clear and specific ones are the restrictions in housing, in house purchase, which are to be administered by Government fiat, and, at the same time, the increase on the interest rates which, of course, will bear far more harshly on local authorities than on the private sector? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also try to justify his attack on wages in the public sector, including the salaries of teachers?
Does not this once again show the Government's bias against people who, in the main, are underpaid and are essential to the community against other people, whose spending power is increasing all the time with Government help?
With regard to the private sector, while we welcome the Chancellor's halting progress towards a capital gains tax on the lines that we have suggested many times, will he tell us why he is doing nothing to repeal relevant provisions of the 1957 Finance Act, which enable private companies to keep their profits overseas as a means of avoiding taxation? Warnings here are not good enough.
There are a great many other points which we shall want to debate tomorrow and on the succeeding day, but in relation to this regulator, this 10 per cent. increase in indirect taxation, has not the Chancellor yet understood, as we told him repeatedly during the discussions on the Finance Bill, that this is a measure which will press most heavily on ordinary families? An increase of 5d. on an old-age pensioner's tobacco is a very serious thing, of which the Government really ought to be ashamed. This will press on ordinary families, but he is doing nothing to increase, by a similar surcharge, the level of direct taxation on the wealthier taxpayer, in that he is still maintaining his Surtax concession.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how he can justify this discrimination between the essential, on


the one hand, and the inessential, on the other; between the public sector and the private sector; and, finally, between ordinary families and the richer taxpayers who are getting away with it?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman began his questions by referring to prospectuses. That is a matter which we are very ready to debate with him and his right hon. Friends. He also referred to borrowing. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have some experience of that, too.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that my statement showed a classical bias against public expenditure. It did nothing of the sort. It showed my belief that we have to bring public expenditure under proper control in relation to national resources.
The Surtax proposals do not come into effect until 1963, but I maintain that the proposal I have made for restricting credit in these present circumstances is fair between the public and the private sector.
The Opposition did not vote against regulator No. 1 when it went through in the Finance Bill, and I would have thought that it was clear from the facts I have outlined that these are precisely the circumstances in which that sort of regulator ought to operate.

Mr. Eden: Before my right hon. and learned Friend concluded that he should in any way reduce any overseas spending, what consideration did he give to the question of the financing of the social services generally? For example, is it still justifiable that the State should bear about £68 million a year on school meals and milk? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is he aware that he will have the fullest possible support for any measures he takes to strengthen the value of the £, such as he announced this afternoon?

Mr. Lloyd: I note what my hon. Friend said. I will bear it in mind, but I have tried to keep a proper balance in these proposals.

Mr. Grimond: Is not the upshot of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that nothing new or unexpected has developed in the world economic scene? What we have been told is that Tory economic policy has been totally mis-

calculated and totally inadequate. Is it not only three months since we had a Budget in the House, which is now shown to have been quite irrelevant to the economy of the country? Have not we been told today that the only thing the Government can think of in the current year is again to put up the Bank Rate and increase Purchase Tax? Is it not time that a Government who have come to the end of their road should resign?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened very carefully to my statement. As regards the suggestion of miscalculation, I indicated very clearly in my Budget speech what the trends were, and the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the international situation has certainly not improved since then. The figures which I have given show that internal demand has continued beyond what was to be expected. I do not remember at any time during my Budget speech any hon. Member of the Labour Opposition, or even of the Liberal Party, suggesting that the Budget ought to be harsher. Therefore, I think that there is a considerable element of humbug in this sort of criticism.

Mr. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his tough, resilient, and realistic statement this afternoon, may I ask him to answer two short questions? First, what does he intend to do with the extra £140 million in taxes that he is raising under Section 9 of the Finance Act in the current year, and £210 million in a full year? Is it intended to put it back into a fund for perhaps post-crisis tax credit to those who paid it, or what does he intend to do with it?
Secondly, in view of the dangerous inflationary pressures which he has explained this afternoon, would not it have been advisable to increase the incentives to personal savings, and to study the drop in the results of the National Savings movement in the last few months and perhaps have a new issue of National Savings Certificates, the 11th issue, or increase the limit on the present issue—but at least do something as a further hedge against inflation by giving people incentives to save instead of to spend. Would not that have been advisable?

Mr. Lloyd: The yield of the extra tax will be used to fortify the surplus and diminish the inflationary pressure. I think that my hon. Friend's second point is a matter for debate. I am not at all out of sympathy with the suggestion that he put forward, but I think that it is a matter for debate.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that during the past year there has been virtually no change in British industrial production? Can he say whether the measures that he has announced this afternoon are intended, as far as he is concerned, to increase production, to reduce production, or to leave it unchanged? Can he also say by what means the Government propose to increase the long-term efficiency and competitive power of British industry?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second point is, "By reducing costs". As for the first point, I believe that the best way upon which to build an increase in British production is to have the economy soundly based, to have public expenditure in proper relation to resources, and also for the steps to be taken in industry which I intimated in my statement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of drawings from the International Monetary Fund. Is he aware of disturbing reports that I.M.F. assistance to sterling may be made conditional on our merging with the Common Market? If such pressure is applied, do the Government realise that if they tell the people and trust the people they will have the unswerving support of the nation for any measures necessary to resist such interference in British affairs?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no question or possibility of any such condition being imposed. As for drawing upon the International Monetary Fund, I would remind the House that during last year we strengthened our drawing powers by about £130 million. Our view of this Fund has always been that it should be used for immediate recourse in time of temporary difficulty.

Mr. Shinwell: In his survey of the economic position of the country has not the Chancellor overlooked one very important item, namely, the fact that we

are now spending £1,600 million a year on military organisations? When he referred to the need for maintaining our obligations to N.A.T.O. and, at the same time, called upon the Minister of Defence to review our overseas military expenditure, what did he mean? Did he mean that we intend to withdraw some of our forces from the West, or are we to reduce our military commitments in some other theatre? Can we have some clarity in these matters?

Mr. Lloyd: As for military expenditure overseas generally, what I said stands. The Minister of Defence will have a review to see whether the burden upon our foreign currencies can be reduced. As for Western Europe, we are acting in accordance with the terms of the W.E.U. Treaty and in accordance with the procedures established by N.A.T.O.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the farming community will expect to make some contribution towards the national effort to overcome our difficulties? Nevertheless, has he taken full account of the fact that what has led to the subsidisation bill increasing at the ratepayers' expense year by year has been the uncontrolled nature of imports of products similar to those the stimulation of production of which is being encouraged by the Government? Can he therefore give an assurance that the whole question of import policy with regard to those commodities which are subject to the encouragement of Price Reviews will be fully examined?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "Yes, Sir". The second part opens up wider issues.

Mr. Monslow: Does the Chancellor think that the trade union movement will accept the philosophy of wage restraint in the light of the decisions that he has announced today?

Mr. Lloyd: I should certainly think that the answer was "Yes".

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of the House, but I would point out that we shall have two days in which to debate these matters.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since I gather that it is your wish, Mr. Speaker, that we should not proceed too far in this matter today, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one further question? Is he aware that there is not a single specific measure that he has announced this afternoon which seems likely in any way to increase productivity or exports of British industry? Is he further aware that he has lost a great opportunity of achieving a sense of national unity in this crisis by the gross unfairness of the proposals that he has put forward?

Mr. Lloyd: rose—

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: One right hon. Gentleman has asked a question of another. I hope that the House will allow the other to answer.

Mr. Lloyd: I quite understand the dislike of that question receiving an answer, but the right hon. Gentleman asked it. When he considers my statement I think that he will see that I have been fair in my proposals—that I have tried to deal fairly with both sectors of industry—public and private, and that in my suggestion of restraint I have covered not just the wage earners, but other sectors of the economy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 24th July shall have been agreed to before half past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker will proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [24th July, 1961]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1961–62; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1961–62; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1961–62; ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62; AIR ESTIMATES, 1961–62; NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1959–60; ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1959–60; AIR EXPENDITURE, 1959–60

Resolutions reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1961–62

1. £3,671,010 for the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—


Civil Estimates, 1961–62



£


Class II, Vote 7, Colonial Office
904,410


Class II, Vote 4, Commonwealth Relations Office
2,766,600


Total
£3,671,010

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

2. £24,943,4185 for the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—


Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1961–62



£


Class I, Vote 22, Scottish Home Department (including a Supplementary sum of £10,000)
870,285


Class VI, Vote 1. Board of Trade
4,046,950


Class VI, Vote 4, Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
20,026,250


Total
£24,943,485

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1961–62

CLASS I

3. That a sum, not exceeding £11,240,086, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS II

4. That a sum, not exceeding £91,828,013, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS III

5. That a sum, not exceeding £83,408,610, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IV

6. That a sum, not exceeding £154,565,908, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS V

7. That a sum, not exceeding £905,366,609, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VI

8. That a sum, not exceeding £176,969,165, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VII

9. That a sum, not exceeding £54,982,013, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VIII

10. That a sum, not exceeding £217,678,205, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1962. for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IX

11. That a sum, not exceeding £233,840.672, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS X

12. That a sum, not exceeding £431,171,860, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

13. That a sum, not exceeding £53,352,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1961–62

14. That a sum, not exceeding £12.420,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1961–62

15. That a sum, not exceeding £277,518,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

16. That a sum, not exceeding £253,760,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1961–62

17. That a sum, not exceeding £138,710,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1959–60

18. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,312,078 2s. 3d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1960, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure from the respective Vote as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 13th February, 1961 (H.C. 113) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 220).

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1959–60

19. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,667,720 15s. 8d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1960, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 8th February, 1961 (H.C. 106) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 220).

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1959–60

20. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,872,354 10s. 1d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1960, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 13th February, 1961 (H.C. 107) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 220).

[For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1961, cols. 157–164.]

First Resolution read a Second time.

EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA

4.17 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out "£3,671,010", and to insert "£3,670,010" instead thereof.
In case there should be any misunderstanding in the Committee, let me say that the purpose of my Amendment is not to aid the Chancellor in his new economies. In our view, this is the very last field to which the Chancellor should turn to seek economies. As was said in a newspaper called West Africa last weekend:
Nothing could be more short-sighted than to meet a temporary balance of payments problem, brought about by mismanagement, with economies which would do serious long-term damage both politically and commercially. Yet there is a suspicion that the British Government regards financial aid to Commonwealth countries as something that can be turned on and off according to the United Kingdom's economic climate.
That suspicion has been borne out today by what the Chancellor has said about cutting down on the expenditure which he expects will be undertaken to aid these territories in the years to come.
Today, we have heard the epitaph of ten years of Tory rule, and that epitaph will not be very pleasing to hon. Members opposite or to those who have been misled by them during the last ten years. The mismanagement which we have suffered in our own internal affairs is now being reflected in the affairs of the Commonwealth itself. Both the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations have something to answer for an their own account in connection with the Votes that we are discussing today.
We have, for example, to take the position of Tanganyika, which was raised during Question Time today. I gather from what Mr. Julius Nyerere has said, that the Government propose to give some financial aid to the people of Tanganyika to launch them on their way, as a patrimony. The annual income of Tanganyika is between £12 and £16 per head per annum. That is the position from which they start. They have also suffered, and Her Majesty's Government have gained, from the movement of the balance of payments against them in primary commodities over the last few years. The United Nations has done a survey on Africa since 1950 and repotted that, with the exception of 1954, the terms of trade in respect of primary producing countries have become steadily more adverse. So it is not as though the position were that the Government had got themselves into their economic difficulties because of the adverse terms of trade overseas.
The present Government have had the advantage, denied to the first post-war Government, of very favourable terms of trade which have persisted during the last decade. This has had its effect on the economic well-being of those countries for which we are responsible. Indeed, it is true to say that much of the benefits, or at least some of the benefits, which the British people have derived over the last ten years have been clawed back from the poorest people in the world. Her Majesty's Government have not hesitated to take advantage of that situation to distribute largesse to the people, particularly in election years. I do not think that the Government have a particularly glorious record over that matter.
Of course, the Government have increased the amount of aid each year,


as the Chancellor told us. But the amount of aid given in the form of colonial development and welfare loans and grant, in the form of C.D.C., is only a tithe—indeed, I am being generous, it is not a tithe—of the favourable balance of payments on which the Government have lived during the last decade. Every investigation and report by the United Nations on this matter has told us that it is far more valuable to these countries that we should stabilise prices in order that the terms of trade do not turn adversely against these territories in their primary products, like coffee, cocoa and pyrethrum. Give them stable prices and the Government can keep their aid.
The Government have taken advantage of the unstable prices to give a little back in the form of aid, and then in this House they have claimed credit, moral credit, for the additional aid given by means of these loans and grants. The Government have been performing a confidence trick on the people in the Colonial Territories just as they have performed a confidence trick on the people of these islands during the last decade.
We have undertaken the experiment of having this combined debate on East and Central Africa because we think that there are a number of related problems which it would be worth while for the House to spend time considering today. We believe that they are sufficiently related to make a debate of this sort worth while. One thing has become clear in Africa. It is that with certain exceptions, the problem of these nations securing their freedom is now reaching its final stages. What is concerning, what should concern, what must concern these nations more and more is how they are to lay the foundations soundly for their economic development.
We have seen that in terms of their development the amounts which they can invest are not beginning to match their needs. Again, I quote the United Nations Survey of Africa, which states:
The economic development programmes at present in operation are essentially pre-industrialisation programmes. They aim at providing the proper framework of basic facilities and social services (accounting together for over 80 per cent. of the expenditure under the plans) in the hope that these will induce spontaneous private investment.

That is the object of the present economic development plans. They are a genuine effort to try to provide the basic framework upon which private or public investment, or both, could be erected. Unless this framework is provided we know, from experience and from history, that the private investor, at any rate, will certainly not take up his opportunities in these territories. So I am right to claim that it is essential for these territories—it is essential if we are to resolve our moral obligations as their trustees—that we should enable them to provide this basic structure on which they can build.
That is why I have no hesitation in saying, on the very day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his economies, that we are, by his decision, resolving, this House is resolving, that we shall postpone the raising of the standard of life of some of the poorest people in the world: and we are doing it precisely for the reason and in the way I have described to the House—through the advantage we have taken of their own balance of payments difficulties.
This year, on page 48, there is a reference in the Colonial Report, to
the difficult financial position of the East African territories.
It is well known that in a number of these territories, for example, in Tanganyika last year, torrential rains at the wrong time damaged the crops, lowered the revenue and lowered the proceeds. In Kenya, there has been a drought for two years. Last week, I read that one of the Yenya farmers' associations had called on the Government to recognise the existence of the crisis which this drought was bringing about. But, so far, I have heard no response to that cry.
In Uganda, the price of robusta coffee fell within a period of four months from 155s. a cwt. to 105s. a cwt. Later, it recovered slightly. The Government have had the advantage of this position the whole time and they have not hesitated to take advantage of it to relieve themselves of their own problems. I say that the House has every right to tell the Government that, despite their difficulties, which they have, by their own mismanagement and lack of leadership, brought largely on their own shoulders,


they have no right to take it out of these people. That is why I say to the Colonial Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relation's—in one sense in the hope of strengthening their arms against the Chancellor—that the House does not wish our burdens to be translated to the backs of these people.
I have a lot of material about the way in which the poverty of these territories, which is extreme in the absolute sense, has been added to because we have been securing an uncovenanted advantake over the last few years. But I think that I have said enough to make my point on that, and now I will turn to the particular illustration of Tanganyika.
So far as I can understand, the basic plan in Tanganyika, where, as I say, the average income is between £12 and £16 a year, is to provide about £24 million in three years. This plan has been pared to the very bone. It is cut down in such a way that 60 per cent. of the expenditure would go to economic services and only 6 per cent. to the social services. It should delight the heart of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) that the very poorest should be denied any improvement in their social services at all. The hon. Member would feel at home in Tanganyika.
Apart from education, 6 per cent. will be devoted to improvement in the social services. What are the Government ready to do? I can rely only on unofficial information. This afternoon, the Colonial Secretary said that he had put new proposals to the Prime Minister and, therefore, he could not disclose what he had said. But I wish to disclose what I understand to be the position, at any rate, up to the date of the last discussion.
I understand that what the right hon. Gentleman has offered the Government of Tanganyika in terms of Commonwealth assistance loans is £700,000 per annum for the next five years. They are, of course, to get the unexpended balances of the colonial development and welfare grants which are always voted. There are a number of smaller sums which would be voted, the unexpended balances of schemes which have been committed, but the actual patrimony we propose to give, after we have lived on these people for the last decade, is £700,000 per annum for the next five years.
It is not just with phasing that the Colonial Secretary should concern himself, whether they get the same sum in each of the five years. Seven hundred thousand pounds is the actual cost of one V-bomber. Last year, we laid down two guided missile destroyers. They cost £12 million each, £24 million for the two of them when we laid the keels. That is the whole sum which Tanganyika is asking for to get through her pre-industrialisation programme and to begin to raise the standard of life of her people.
The Government say that we must lay down the guided missile destroyers. One Leander class frigate—and I know a little about these things, but not so much as the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, although I follow them fairly closely—will cost this country £7 million, yet we are offering Tanganyika £700,000. Do the Government Front Bench feel very proud of that? I say to them that they should be ashamed of their mismanagement of Britain's affairs, which has brought us to the pass in which the Colonial Secretary has to make such a miserable offer to the Prime Minister of Tanganyika.
Of course, Tanganyika has not been an entirely free agent. Her balances and reserves have been invested in this country. She has shared in our fortunes. Alas, she has not had the benefit of the hire-purchase boom or the credit facilities we have enjoyed, but what she has been able to share in was the knowledge that all her reserves were invested in gilt-edged securities, in support of us, I suppose. We know what has happened to gilt-edged over the last few years. What we are asking Tanganyika to take over as her birthright is depreciated gilt-edged standing at a lower level than has been known in modern times. That is the patrimony which the right hon. Gentlemen are bequeathing to that country.
I understand that a proposition has been made to them, which I repeat and ask the House to support, that the Government should be willing to take over the gilt-edged, the Tanganyika sums compulsorily invested in this country, at nominal prices and hold them until the date of maturity. The Government would lose nothing, but Tanganyika would gain a great deal. If she cannot


get more out of a hard-hearted and skinflint Government than she has so far got, she will be compelled to use those sums to carry on her investment programme. We are also bequeathing a railway which runs at a loss and a port which runs at a loss. She will get no financial support for those.
It is not just the injury which the Government are doing to the long-term prospects of British people, but the injury done to the good name of our country overseas. Yesterday, I was discussing the new Russian loan to Indonesia, assistance of £120 million over a period of years for that country. Here we are, with all the advantage of history and all the accumulated services, all the civil servants and school teachers and everyone else in Tanganyika. If hon. Members opposite like to put it on a cold war basis, if nothing else will appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, what would Russia give to have Tanganyika full of Russian school teachers, Russian civil servants and Russian experts?
We propose to throw all this away. Fortunately, Mr. Nyerere is not a man likely to be bought by this sort of consideration. He is too decent. He has not staged a rebellion, or a revolt. He has believed in the good name of Britain, but his reward is probably the most mean financial settlement that has ever been proposed to any territory on coming to self-government. I must not remain too long on this question, but I think that the House will agree that it is a shocking condemnation of the Government's mismanagement of their economic and financial affairs.
In passing, I wish to say a word or two about Zanzibar, which I hope to have the privilege of visiting shortly with the Parliamentary Secretary, thanks to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sorry to learn that the Afro-Shirazi Party is boycotting the General Election because of disturbances which have taken place. That party should recognise that those disturbances are now being fully inquired into and that nothing can be gained from a boycott of the Legislative Assembly. If any Assembly of this sort is to function the Opposition must play their part in every sense of the word. I hope that the AfroShirazi Party will take its place in the Legislative Assembly, opposite the Gov-

ernment, and bring its influence to bear as it ought in these matters.
I turn to Uganda. I think that the Earl of Munster and his fellow Commissioners did a valuable service by producing their Report of the Uganda Relationships Commission, which was published a month or two ago. No one can foresee Uganda's future. I trust that the Kabaka will accept the proposals that are made that he should behave in all senses as a constitutional monarch, retire from politics and allow the people of his territory of Buganda to exercise their democratic rights as they wish. The Earl of Munster—who, I should say, is a former Conservative Minister, in case anyone thinks that he is a wild Socialist—said in his Report, in paragraph 123:
Buganda tribalism is a real and potent force, and some safety valve for it must be provided.
I hope that the Kabaka will listen to those words, with which I absolutely agree.
I do not at the moment agree with the Earl of Munster's recommendations that in the new national Assembly, which is to cover the whole of Uganda, the Lukiko should be able to nominate a group of members direct from itself whereas the rest of the country should have direct elections. The Opposition can be blunter than the Government. We say that in present circumstances, with the Kabaka's nominees and representatives being the only ones to go into the new national Assembly, there is no likelihood of building up a real democratic system.
I hope I carry the Colonial Secretary with me, as I know I carry some hon. Members opposite. I trust that he will use more diplomatic words than I have used in saying to the Kabaka that it is the view of this House that the Lukiko should not itself provide these representatives, but that there should be direct elections from Buganda to the national Assembly as from the other parts of the territory.
I must leave that matter there and turn for a moment to the question of Kenya. What has become quite clear is that there is general support now for the release of Mr. Kenyatta, except perhaps on the back benches of the party opposite. Europeans, Africans, and those of


all parties are saying that it is essential that Mr. Kenyatta should be released and able to take his full place in the political life of the community.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite will, I know, find this a bitter pill to swallow, but, in fact, if our fellow countrymen out there are ready to swallow it, I do not see why they should baulk at it. One European after another is now saying that Kenyatta's release is vital for the future progress of Kenya. I ask the Colonial Secretary what is the Government's policy about this matter. It really is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that considerations of security are to dictate the decision on the release of Mr. Kenyetta, because we do not believe it.
It is not considerations of security that are keeping Mr. Kenyatta under restriction at the moment; it is considerations of the internal politics of the Conservative Party. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to find the right moment to release Kenyatta without having another explosion round his ears to follow on the other dissensions which, at the moment, are tearing the Tory Party apart?

Mr. Patrick Wall: Nonsense.

Mr. Callaghan: I am delighted to hear that there is unity in the Tory Party on the question of the Common Market.

Mr. William Yates: Wait for the Recess.

Mr. Callaghan: I quite agree that the Government will be saved by the Recess. There must be no one who is praying more for the Recess than the Colonial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the Colonial Secretary will be very relieved on the day the House rises and his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will not be sitting there brooding over him, ready to tear him apart. It is a poor show when the affairs of Kenya have to be dictated by the date of our Recess.
I want to ask another question of the Colonial Secretary. There has been an increasing demand among all pasties for internal self-government. Some say this year, some say very quickly. The Chief Minister, or the Leader of the Government—is he called?—I am not quite sure

of these titles, which change so rapidly, nearly as often as our own "stop-and-go" economy—says he hopes that there will be a Prime Minister in Kenya before the end of this year, and K.A.D.U. and K.A.N.U. seem to be united about this. What is the Government's policy? Have they got one? Are they ready to bring internal self-government in this year, in the sense in which it is being demanded, because I am certain that the Kenya economy and the political situation there will not settle down until there is internal self-government and they become responsible for their own affairs?
Of course, there are some fears there, and I sympathise with them. The European farmers there have very considerable apprehensions about their own future, and the Colonial Secretary has done nothing to relieve them. Indeed, one criticism which I make of the Colonial Secretary this afternoon is that having decided on his policy, which may or may not be the right policy, he has made no attempt to convert those who are opposed to him. Maybe he never could agree with the European farmers in Kenya, but he might have made an effort.
From my conversations with them, I think that the brush-off he gave them stung them just as much as the basis on which he talked to them. In some ways, I may have been saying very much the same sort of thing to them as he has been saying, but they are willing to talk to me again, and feel that there is some sympathy and understanding of their position, while the Colonial Secretary has betrayed no understanding of their position and no comprehension of their legitimate fears in this matter.
The House should understand, whatever our views about the large farmers and settlers who have been there thirty or forty years, that a number of the young farmers were persuaded to go out there after the end of the war, to put their capital into the territory, to get 100, 200, or 300 acres, provide a new home, build up something and be sure about the future. Now, they say that they were invited to go out, that they thought they were going to live under the British constitution and under the British flag, and that now they find that they are not. Without being harsh on them, I think that it was a little short-sighted of them


to expect this, but there was no reason why they should not have expected it, when this was what the British Government were saying. All of us remember Mr. Lennox-Boyd's statement about the way in which the British regime was to be maintained in Kenya, and that the British flag was to fly, the British constitution was to operate with British standards and all the rest.
I never believed it. After all, I knew Mr. Lennox-Boyd, and these young men did not. There is no doubt that a number of them genuinely feel that they were mislead because the British Government either did not understand or misjudged the pace of development towards self-government in these territories. So I say to these young men, when they come to see me, "Do not look over your shoulders to Westminster and Whitehall. Do not trust the Tory Party, at any rate." I remind them of what Sir William Harcourt said:
The Tory Party never yet took up a cause which it did not betray.
I say to them "If you really want to make a future, look to Nairobi. Work with the Africans. Your job, as young men coming to this country and making your future in this country, is give leadership all technical help you can from your expert knowledge of farming, and you can be a tremendous asset to that country, and I believe that the country will welcome it."
These young men are very much more embittered about the Conservative Government than I am, and the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) need not think that I am letting the side down, because what I said is balm compared with the vitriol they poured over the Colonial Secretary and the Government. I am certain that we are giving them the right advice to make their future there. I think that some of the incautious statements made by African politicians from time to time are bound to arouse apprehensions in their minds. I very much regret the statements that no land titles will be given to Europeans. I do not believe that they are responsible statements, nor do I believe that they are ever likely to be translated into action.
We also get some extraordinary statements from the European leaders in Southern Rhodesia from time to time,

and, when they are made, we are told to dismiss them because these are purely for electoral consumption, but if an African leader makes a statement like this at a public meeting, it is taken up by those outside, who point to the damage that is being done.
There is a double standard of behaviour. It is expected that Africans should behave in a more civilised and Christian way than European politicians when addressing the electorate. I think that it is a great compliment to the Africans that this should be so, but it seems to me very odd that we should apply this double standard in this way. I now understand that K.A.N.U. and K.A.D.U. are to discuss the question of land titles jointly. Mr. Kenyatta, whose influence is growing every day, has intimated to these two parties that they should discuss the question of land titles.
What we must say to these young farmers who are looking for our help is, "Go and talk with them about it, and see how far your fears are overcome. If you feel that you have a legal claim against the British Government"—and some are arguing in those terms—"you had better pursue it through a court of law", but I would not encourage the Colonial Secretary to give a guarantee to them that whatever an African Government may do, we should bail them out.
As I have argued before, this is, in some ways, an incitement to irresponsibility, and I believe that it is our job to tell them that if they feel at the end of the negotiations that there are things which have been done wrongly or badly, by all means let them come here to see the Colonial Secretary. I think that he will give them a sympathetic hearing, which I believe the House would want him to do in these circumstances.
I turn for a moment to Northern Rhodesia. I think that its Constitution is even worse now than when I first read it. I said then that I could not understand it. Apparently, I was not alone, and other people have been trying to understand it ever since. A number of mistakes have been made. The Guardian this morning tells us that there is a major error in the voting proposals, and there is an editorial devoted to it. The Colonial Secretary was kind enough to send me a letter before this debate, and I thank him for it.
I quote the final conclusion, in which the right hon. Gentleman says that, even if the formula could be interpreted in the way which the Guardian suggests,
I assure you that there has never been any intention whatsoever that the percentages should be calculated in the manner suggested in the reports to which I have referred. If the wording of the despatch does leave any room for doubt in this, and it has not been suggested before that it does, the Regulations will make the point clear.
I hope that that will be clearly understood in Northern Rhodesia. This is the view of the Colonial Secretary. This is what he intends to do. The regulations will make clear that, in fact, the error or weakness discovered by a lecturer in or teacher of mathematics—and I was not so far wrong when I said that I doubted very much whether I should be able to do the arithmetic—will not be allowed to persist.
The Colonial Secretary has not circulated these constitutional changes among hon. Members. I am grateful to him for sending five copies of them to us. I should think that he is a little sensitive about circuating them. I have a good mind to read them out so as to get them into HANSARD. I wish that we had the American system here so that they could be inserted in the record. How the simple untutored people who make up the electorate of Northern. Rhodesia are supposed to understand these proposals when they are just barely able to get the vote is beyond my comprehension. I can analyse them, but the effort of cerebration is so great that when I reach the end of my analysis I am unable to criticise them. That is the position in which I find myself this afternoon.
I wish to mention another point which is a very serious blot and which has undoubtedly weighed the scales on the side of the United Federal Party. It is the requirement that a candidate will need to secure either 400 votes or one-eighth of the votes cast, whichever is the less, for election. In every constituency there are bound to be fewer Europeans than Africans. I think that that is agreed. Therefore, if a candidate has to obtain 400 votes, or one-eighth of the votes cast, whichever is the less, it will obviously be easier to get 400 votes of a larger African electorate than of a

smaller European electorate. The African will have to get 400 votes, or one-eighth, whichever is the less, of a small European electorate. The European will have to get 400 votes, or one-eighth, of the votes—those are the fatal words—of a much larger electorate.
I am sorry to indulge in this arithmetic. I should not have dreamed of foisting it on the House, but it would be difficult to criticise unless I did so. The Under-Secretary of State will emerge unscathed if we are not careful, because it is difficult to bring these facts out on the Floor of the House. My considered conclusion—and it is a considered conclusion; I do not say it lightly—is that the hon. Gentleman has been pushed a long way away from his position of last December in relation to the Northern Rhodesian constitution. He has been pushed in the direction of the success of the United Federal Party.
As the Guardian leader said this morning,
Normally it is not a defect in an electoral system that one cannot forecast the result …
I agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman has said this more than once. But that is not the position here. The rest of the Guardian's sentence is this:
Mr. Kenneth Kaunda's supporters want an answer to the simple question: Will there be a representative majority?".
Whether one can or cannot forecast the result, one should be able to say that it will be a representative majority. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman cannot say, because these permutations and combinations can be understood only by someone capable of playing Bingo or filling in the football pools.

Mr. Stan Awbery: Will the Colonial Secretary send each of us a copy of the document to which my hon. Friend has referred?

Mr. Callaghan: If I may reinforce my hon. Friend's plea, there seems to be no reason why this document should not be reproduced. It would not strain the resources of the Government's printer, the Stationery Office. But it would strain the resources of my hon. Friend if he attempted to understand it. It is a good job that he has three months in which to do it.
I wish to say a further word or two about the Central African Federation


generally. I am very sorry that since October last year no move has been made towards fulfilling the conditions which the Monckton Commission laid down as necessary for the successful continuation of the Federation. Paragraph 81 of the Report states:
We recommend a major operation to reduce the functions exercised by the central authority, to change the composition of the Assembly, to widen the franchise, to improve the machinery of co-operation between the constituent states, and to introduce safeguards against racial discrimination and for the protection of minorities.
The Colonial Secretary's formal answer is that the conference has been adjourned, but if there were a real will to make the Federation work it should not be beyond the wit of the Governments concerned, including the Federation Government, to make a declaration of intention. Is it the intention to increase the franchise of the Africans in the Federal Assembly? Is it the intention to reduce the functions of the Central African Federation and to hand them back to the Territories? Is it the intention to change the composition of the Assembly and to put in more Africans? We should at least have had some indication that this was where we were starting from, but all this time has gone by and we have had no indication about it. The atmosphere has become more and more sour.
Paragraph 88 of the Report reads:
If some form of federal association is to continue, … Africans must … have a much higher proportion of the seats in the Federal Assembly.
That is covered in a previous paragraph. I am sorry to have troubled the House with it. Paragraph 114 states that members of the Commission
are content to recommend that there should be an African majority in the Legislature and an unofficial majority in the Executive Council.….
If the Central African Federation has gone sour in the last ten months, it is as much due to the inaction of the Federal Government, of the Colonial Secretary and of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations as to their actions. We should have had declarations of intention on all these matters.
Finally, I wish to mention the contrast between these three Territories and East Africa. I was delighted to see the successful outcome of the talks between

Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika about the future of the East Africa High Commission. The attitude of the Government on this matter has been cautious, correct and circumspect. They have said to these three Territories—and I hope that hon. Members will note this—" If you wish to federate, it is your decision. If you wish to come together, we shall do nothing to stand in your way. But equally we shall do nothing to force it on you." What a pity it is that we did not learn that lesson in connection with another part of Africa.
What these three great Territories, comprising between 25 million and 30 million people, have decided is that they will come together, that theirs shall be a rudimentary assembly to be established with legislative powers, that there will be common services maintained through a special organisation and that there will be the beginnings of a merging of these three Territories. I welcome that. I am sure that anything which can be done towards that end will not only assist the economic development of these Territories and perhaps overcome the problems of Uganda in relation to the Lukiko and the Kabaka, but may also help with the problems of Zanzibar and that coastal strip. I hope that this East African Federation, which has started on a long road, will be successful, and I am sure that every hon. Member will join with me in wishing it the best of success in its enterprise.
I do not despair of that. I do not know how many more speeches on colonial affairs I shall make. Probably the House would be glad if I stopped now. However, I believe that, looking ahead, there is no reason why we should limit our vision, whether it be a matter of practical politics or not, to a Central African Federation torn by dissension and disagreement yet rich in many of the material resources, such as minerals and tobacco, on the one hand, and an East African Federation, with a population three times as great as that of Central Africa, on the other. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that if an East African Federation came into existence there would be within it 25 million people against the 8 million people in Central Africa. I do not know why these Territories should necessarily expect to remain separate. I am looking some years ahead, but if we look at the


geography there is no reason why they should not come together. The combined area of these six countries will be very little larger than that of the Sudan or the Congo or Algeria. It will be far smaller than territories like India. There seems to be no reason at all why we should erect or expect to erect a series of little States in this part of Africa, all of them working separately.
Even if the Central African Federation is dissolved—and I do not wish to embark upon that this afternoon; we shall have to come back to it later—there seems to be no reason why the six Territories should not at some time see their future together, and I believe they could have a harmonious future. They have many things in common. They have a language in common over a wide area. They have economies which are complementary to each other. They have social and educational institutions of a similar nature.
I would like the House to say to these three East African Territories: we are founding something which could grow and bring peace, solace and a proper form of development to everyone in these Territories, from Bechuanaland in the South to the tip of Tanganyika in the North. It would be a unit which would be quite possible. We in this House, whilst we cannot begin to take a decision, might turn our eyes in this direction and see whether the solution to some of these problems might not lie along such a unity as I have suggested.

5.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): Perhaps the most startling statistic that one can use to introduce a discussion on Colonial Affairs is to consider how many people now live in the dependent Territories compared with the number at the end of the war. In 1945 516 million people lived in the dependent Territories of the Crown. At the time of the last General Election that figure was 80 million. Now it is 43 million. Of those 43 million, 13 million have already signed the documents and agreed the conferences that will bring their independence to them, and the remaining 30 million are dispersed in more than 30 territories in the five Continents of the world.
We are considering the most difficult problems left to us—the problems of

East and Central Africa—but although I will follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and limit my speech to them, I should like to say two or three sentences about the remaining colonial possession in Africa, Gambia on the West Coast of Africa. As the House probably knows, we have a conference going on at the present time in London—indeed, it went so well yesterday that it almost ended the same day as it began—and I should not like them to think that when they are here as guests in London we have forgotten their problems.
We are talking of East and Central Africa and, as did the hon. Member, I will start with Tanganyika, which is the largest both in population and area, of the remaining territories for which I have for a time a responsibility. Independence will come to them on 9th December this year, and many tributes have justly and rightly been paid to the way in which they have moved towards their independence.
I should like to make just three points on that matter. First it is said, and said with justice, of Mr. Julius Nyerere that he is a man outstanding in his generation and that he is remarkable amongst the ranks of present-day statesmen in Africa, and perhaps beyond. I merely want to make this point. Five years ago Mr. Nyerere was regarded as an extreme African nationalist racial leader, and I believe there are other Territories that we are discussing today to which that reference has point.
Secondly, in Tanganyika there has been a most exceptional and distinguished roll of Governors in which the names of Cameron, Twining and Turnbull perhaps stand out.
Thirdly, there is one phrase that for a long time has stayed in my memory. In 1954 it was said in the Trusteeship Council, during a debate on Tanganyika, criticising the apparent lack of constitutional progress: "It may be that where there is no violent conflict there is no progress." Tanganyika has proved that wrong, because Tanganyika has gone more swiftly, perhaps, than any other country without violence and in peace towards her independence.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of Tanganyika finance. I do not want to deal with this in great detail.


I saw the Prime Minister of Tanganyika a few days ago. I would say that the hon. Gentleman's figures are not wholly right because he missed one useful word in the short answer that I gave this afternoon, when I said that I had put an improved offer to the Prime Minister of Tanganyika. But although it has been possible to push forward with C.D.C. schemes and to provide help towards H.M.O.C.S. payments, what interests the House is the Tanganyikan three-year development scheme.
The position is this. The average rate of spending over the last three years has been about £4½ million. The World Bank Report estimated that an appropriate figure would be £6 million. Mr. Nyerere, very understandably, with his Government, aims higher still, although along the same general lines of development, and hopes for £8 million, or £24 million over the three years. We have had some discussions on the help that we could provide towards that.
Subsequent to those talks Mr. Nyerere visited the United States of America, and I should particularly like to read, because it is extremely encouraging, the last sentence of the Press communiqué which was issued:
President Kennedy expressed the friendly interest of the United States in Tanganyika's future and made clear the intention of the United States to join the United Kingdom and others in helping Tanganyika to meet the objectives of its three-year development plan.
That is the consortium approach—and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) made the point at Question Time today—which seems to be very welcome indeed.
The key question is this: Would it be right for Tanganyika to go ahead with the plans that she has? I should like to tell the House that I made it clear in writing and in conversation to Mr. Nyerere that I think it would be reasonable and prudent for them so to do. Naturally it would be pleasant if we could ourselves and alone provide all the finance for the development programme for this splendid country, and for all other countries too, but naturally, we are not in a position to do that. With respect to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I do not think he ought to bring Soviet aid into this question. I think I am right in saying—I should like to check it—that

this island alone provides to the underdeveloped countries more aid than the whole of the Sino-Soviet bloc put together. Therefore, even though we may not in all territories be able to do as much as we wish to do, we have nothing to fear from this comparison.
Indeed, if we look at all forms of assistance—I am talking about assistance to Colonial Territories alone—the level was £35½ million in 1957–58; in 1960–61 it is £69 million, or twice as much, and for the current financial year it will be in the region of £80 million, although that last figure does not include the very large territory of Nigeria which has now left the Colonies. In other words, although the numbers in these territories have dropped by half the amount of assistance that we have been giving has been more than doubled. As the hon. Member will realise from a careful study of my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, he did not suggest that in this field—I agree with its importance—there should be any cutting back.
If we look over the channel from Tanganyika a few miles, about the distance from Dover to Calais, to Zanzibar and then the same sort of distance to its sister island Pemba, we find there one place in the Colonial Territories where there has been recently the most severe and serious disturbance, and I think that the danger of racial tension remains there between the Afro-Shirazi Party and the Zanzibar Nationalist Party. I was glad to hear what the hon. Member said, and I should like to echo it. I hope that the Afro-Shirazi Party will take their seats in the Legislative Council, which they are at present boycotting, and will pursue by constitutional means the ends that they seek. All the same, this tragedy of Zanzibar can, at the same time, be taken to underline how peaceful, on the whole, those fierce years of 1960–61 have been in Africa.
The great emergencies of Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus and Nyasaland have come to an end. Although in many territories there have been disturbances and in many territories there have been difficulties that have called for the use of police, I doubt if we have had a time, certainly since the end of the war, in which the Colonial Territories have been so peaceful as they have been in the last two years.
One of the consequences of Tanganyika becoming independent was that it was necessary to find ways of reconciling with that independence our association with the common services of East Africa, because it would have been wasteful beyond words to have destroyed the common currency, the common services, the railways and many other matters which the territory share among themselves. So it was of great importance that towards the end of June we had a very successful conference in London to see how those services could continue after Tanganyika became independent.
I said at the time that I thought this conference had a significance going far beyond its immediate decisions, and I believe that that is true. The one thing that was noticeable all the time, and this applied, I think, to everyone, African and European, who attended this conference, was how the gates to the future were deliberately left open—deliberately, I think, all the gates to a possible federation were left ajar. I have always held the view that although it is essential that federation for East Africa, if it comes, should be a grass roots movement which the people of East Africa themselves want, and not something which we should try to impose on them from Westminster, yet I believe that almost all the problems, great and small, that there are in East Africa would be far easier to solve in the context of a federation.
I want to say a word about Uganda. Since I became Secretary of State I have tried there to pursue a double approach —the approach of general elections for the Protectorate and the approach of ensuring that special regard was paid in the Kingdoms and agreement districts of Uganda, particularly Buganda, to the traditions of the rulers and of their people. I like to think that we have had some success in that policy.
Not everyone thought that we could hold elections at all, and fewer still thought that we could hold them in peace, but they were held in peace, and Uganda has gone forward in peace. It has now a chief Minister and an advanced form of constitution, and I am planning, as the House knows, to have a conference in September at which I hope we shall begin to draw the threads together of the constitutional advance

of Uganda itself, on the one side, and the fruits of the very valuable report which Lord Munster and his colleagues have provided for us, on the other. I shall not go into details. I agree with the hon. Member that the proposal in relation to the Lukiko is one of the most controversial. I am aware of that, but he would not expect me to pontificate on that before the time comes for the conference in six or seven weeks.
I now turn to Kenya. I think that to most hon. Members in the House, and this is certainly true of myself, that even though we may differ about Kenya, we care more about Kenya than any other Colonial Territory. I have always felt that myself, partly because I have friends and relations in Kenya, and that is why it has always been a great bitterness to me that the policy which I believe to be right and which I have pursued has so many opponents in Kenya itself.
There are two problems that I would wish to discuss with the House, security of title and law and order. I discussed the problems of law and order recently, not in the East African Commission to which I have referred, but in subsequent talks with members of the Kenya Government and with Leaders of the Opposition, and we produced communiques afterwards. I was greatly encouraged to find that the African leaders themselves recognised the importance of the land issue, including the question of property rights, and agreed that this subject should be dealt with as well as that of constitutional advance in the discussions which are shortly to be held. In answer to the hon. Member's question, I believe that those discussions are likely to start on Thursday of this week.
The Governor intends to associate those—perhaps members of the coalition, perhaps members of the K.N.F.U.—who are representative of the interests directly concerned with the discussion on land at the appropriate stage. The view that I put forward in relation to the problems of land in Kenya is, I think, well known to the House. All those who have property, and this applies increasingly to a great number of African farmers who are making a substantial contribution to the economy, as well as to the Europeans to whose efforts the present position of Kenya is so largely due—all property owners want their


rights to property to be respected, but the difficulty is that paper guarantees themselves are not a satisfactory answer. By far the most important thing, if we can secure it, is to be sure that those who will inherit our responsibilities in Kenya understand both the wisdom and the justice of ensuring that those who contribute so much to the economy of the country can do so secure in the knowledge that their rights are respected. That is why I attach so much importance to the talks which are starting under the Governor's chairmanship, and if the outcome should be a clear, acceptable and reassuring statement that will do more than anything else to restore confidence and hence to fulfil the conditions which are a prerequisite to further progress in other fields.
There is the other side of policy. I think it right to pursue, as we have done, policies of development and resettlement. I think it right to try to associate, as I have done, international finance with these different policies. I think it right —I hope to be able to announce the details to the House in a short time—to accelerate the plans in accordance with proposals made to me by the Kenya Government.
Everyone will realise that the Kenya Government had a very difficult time when they took office. I, for one, pay high tribute to them for the way they have operated the new constitution and tackled the complex day-to-day questions in Kenya. Of course, there have been tragic and worrying incidents. But, looking back and remembering the forecasts which were made, I think it fair to say that, on the whole, Kenya has moved through the months since the election with remarkable calm.
The Governor has at his disposal a strong, competent and well-equipped police force which, with other forces which can be made available, are, in his judgment, fully adequate to deal with security. Never have I been for a moment complacent about the situation in relation to security, but I believe that, if we can succeed in broadening the base of the Government, we shall be able to move forward in Kenya with the good will of all races in secure and happy conditions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about Mr. Kenyatta. Naturally, this

is not a matter on which I can, as it were, share my thoughts with the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that and will recognise, too, that this is and has been a burden of decision for a long time upon me and upon the Governor. I do not think I can add to what I said to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) a few days ago. Perhaps I may repeat what I said then. I have a duty to fulfil and so has the Governor. We shall discharge that duty in the best way we can, and I shall inform the House as soon as possible of any decision. I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing except the proper considerations of law and order and the well-being of Kenya will enter into the considerations of either the Governor or myself.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to full internal self-government. As I said earlier, talks will start on Thursday of this week, perhaps not with any fixed agenda. I think it is too early to say or to try to prophesy which particular stage of constitutional advance will be reached in so many months or so many years ahead.

Mr. Callaghan: I must press the question about Mr. Kenyatta on the Colonial Secretary because it is the imperative view of most people who have studied the problem that he should be released. Did the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he would inform the House as soon as he had reached a conclusion mean that the House will have a statement on the matter before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Macleod: If, by the time the Summer Recess comes, there is anything at all of which I should inform the House, or if I have reason to believe that in the months of the Recess anything would happen of which I should inform the House, I undertake that I will, however late it may be in the Session, make a statement on those lines.
The question of Northern Rhodesia rightly occupied much of the hon. Gentleman's time. If I may say so, I thought that he was very fair in his judgments. This is an extremely difficult problem. There are two charges brought against us. The first rests on the appalling complexity of the Constitution. The prosecution may put its papers away because I shall plead guilty to that. The


second is that what has been done since February is not in the spirit and framework of the White Paper. I wish to meet those two charges at once.
There is a very important point in relation to the charge of complexity. It is not an accident that the simplest constitution for which I have had responsibility was that for Nyasaland and that the most complicated was that for Northern Rhodesia. It is not an accident that there are simple constitutions in West Africa and in the West Indies, where these problems have been overcome, and in Uganda and Tanganyika. It is not an accident, on the other hand, that easily the three most complicated Constitutions produced in the last few years are my predecessor's Constitution for Northern Rhodesia, my own for Northern Rhodesia and my own for Kenya.
It is precisely these two Territories in which the problem of the multi-racial society exists. We are there trying to do something which is very complicated. We are trying to give considerable representation—in this case, more or less equal representation—to a community which, although very small in numbers, is very considerable in the importance it has both in relation to Government and in the economic running of the country. It follows almost at once that one is in complexities of this kind. Indeed, we can see them coming in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution which will be the subject of the referendum in a day's time.
I want the House to consider for a moment how these problems can be made—if they can be made—more simple. It is convenient, perhaps, to look at it in terms of this country. We have moved through these complexities towards the simple system. It was only in 1950, with the abolition of the business vote and the university vote brought in by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, that "one man one vote" came to this country. It is only eleven years old. Those who reflect that it is a cure for all ills may care to reflect also that, at every election since, the number of seats of the party which brought it in has gone steadily down.
If we were to try in this country what we are doing in Africa, if we were to try to represent, shall we say, the Labour

Party in Northern Ireland or the Tory Party in the South Wales coalfields, how should we do it? We could not do it just by saying that there shall be a certain number of seats, because then the Labour or the Unionist people would pick the candidates and at once would come the charge of "stooge", which is one of the most unpleasant features of African politics today. So at once—this is the point—one must have hurdles of some sort. One must either have primary elections or one must have a complicated method of hurdles. Complication is inevitable in what one is trying to do.
I turn now to the second charge. Has what has been done been in accordance with what was said in February this year? Everyone will know that in February a White Paper was produced and the Governor started a number of discussions in Lusaka. Subsequently to that, the Government produced a despatch, which I published. The great dispute at that time was not, in fact, so much on the matters now in dispute such as the hurdle or the Asian seat but on the 60:40 principle as against the 50:50 principle.
In June, these were the headlines in The Times:
Mr. Macleod sticks to 50:50 principle. Constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia. African majority possible.
That is accurate.
The Daily Telegraph had the head-lines:
N. Rhodesia rule left open. European or African majority possible. 'Can work', says Sir Roy Welensky.
That, again, is accurate.
The Guardian said:
Chance of African majority less
It would be fair to add that the chance of a European majority was less, too. Of those who put it in more personal terms —because this, I am afraid, often happens with the Press—the Daily Express said, "Welensky Wins", the Daily Mail said, "Macleod Wins" and the Daily Herald said, "Macleod Wins on Points."
I do not think that anybody who looks at these changes can argue that they were outside the spirit and framework of the White Paper. If I may, I will quote for a moment from the editorial of The Times. It said:
But it is possible to ask and answer certain questions. The first of these is whether


or not the proposals fall within the framework of the February White Paper. The answer is that on the whole they do.
The other quotation, in relation to the racial hurdle which it was necessary to carry out—paragraphs 18 and 19 of the White Paper—is:
The arrangement seems fair, consistent with the principle of racial parity and in consonance with the spirit of the White Paper if not perhaps with the letter, which, however, seems to have been left almost purposefully vague.

Viscount Lambton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he wholeheartedly supports that section of the Constitution which ensures that every candidate must have 400 votes?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, indeed. It does not actually say 400; it says 12½ per cent. or 400, whichever is the less.
If one works on a reasonable basis of assuming that there would be something like a 70 per cent. poll, that means that an African would have to obtain something like 280 votes and a European would have to obtain 400 votes. I believe that that is so.
I am glad that the hon. Member mentioned the question raised in the Guardian this morning. It certainly gave me a very unpleasant shock at breakfast time. I cannot seriously think that people will believe that anyone is expected to get a minimum percentage not only in the election in which he is himself a candidate but in the neighbouring election in which he is not. I confirm, as I have already written to the hon. Member, that that was both the wording and the intention of the Government's dispatch.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: According to the Guardian, the documents which commit this error have already been printed and distributed. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that these documents will be withdrawn and that a correction will, if necessary, be made?

Mr. Macleod: I am not sure to which document the hon. Gentleman refers, but it may well be the explanatory pamphlet issued by the Northern Rhodesian Government. I will send the hon. Member, and the hon. Member who raised the question, a copy of it.
What I find most interesting from my correspondence, and obviously I have had a good deal of it, from Northern Rhodesia, is a point that has aroused the fiercest criticism—the introduction of the Asian seat. All my letters have been loaded with this point. Frankly, I find this surprising, because if we look at the Monckton Report we find that the Commission recorded specifically, I think in paragraph 48, that it was one of the points, indeed the first point, made to it by the Asian and coloured witnesses. They said that they were given no political representation. Part of the Monckton recommendations is that there should be such political representation.
In Kenya, for example, there are reserve Asian seats and there are reserve seats in the Council of Ministers. The same is true in Tanganyika. I received similar representations in different parts of the Federation when I was there. This protest is, in fact, against the stream in general, at least of Asian thought, in East and Central Africa. For that reason I hope very much that the Asian communities, in particular, and the coloured communities will be ready to look more closely at this proposal which, as I said in answer to a Question a week or two ago, deserves more consideration than it has received.
With all the difficulties that there are at present, I remain optimistic quite frankly about Northern Rhodesia, and this largely because of the calibre of its political leaders. I put the political leaders in alphabetical order, and probably none of them will be particularly grateful to me for lumping them together. But for a country with a small population to have as leaders of its political parties Mr. Katilungu, Mr. Kaunda, Sir John Moffat, and Mr. John Roberts, is remarkable. I think that all these people have from their different viewpoints a real understanding of the political needs of Northern Rhodesia, and this is one of the reasons for the confidence which I have always had.
I should like in the few sentences more with which I want to keep the House to glance back for a moment to the very first proposals that I put before the Conference on 19th December, 1960. The other parties have moved a long way since then. In paragraph 9 I said:
The representatives of the African National Congress said that their Party could


not accept anything less than a clear majority of the Africans in the Legislative and Executive Councils, and they demanded 'one man, one vote' without qualification.
They have moved a long way since then.
The United Federal Party representatives challenged the view that there was any justification either for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislative Council, or for any extension of the franchise. They favoured greater representation of African opinion being brought about by associating the Chiefs more closely with the Central Government.
They have moved, and I am very glad that they have, a long way since then. But the proposals that I put before the Conference originally said this:
It seems to me essential that the next stage of constitutional advance should provide for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislature …
I asked the Conference to consider
whether at this next stage we should move into arrangements which will produce in practice something like equal numbers of European and non-European members in the Legislative Council, or something short of that, or something going a little beyond it.
I said finally:
I am sure, however, that there must be an extension of the franchise, to allow greater representation within the voters' roll of African opinion in particular.
So I am entitled to claim that what I put forward originally at the Lancaster House Conference is what I have carried out. I regret very much—I say this frankly—that it has proved necessary, because of the way that we drew up our original scheme, to have the qualifying minimum percentage on a racial basis. I should like, if it were at all possible, to avoid it, but it is not possible to avoid it and at the same time to ensure that a genuine appeal is made to both races. If one looks at the speeches, particularly that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in the debate of 22nd February, 1961, it will be clear that we were all there talking in terms of a racial qualification vote.
The story that I started talking about —from 516 million people living under the Crown independent territories to the present real total of 30 million—is a great success story and one in which, I think, the whole House should take a great deal of pride. We have differed much on this issue, and no doubt shall continue to differ on many matters. We

are faced now with the last and great challenge in East and Central Africa—the multi-racial societies. Africa is now full of examples of the tragedy of going too fast in some areas and of going too slow in others. It is this which is above all a challenge to our statesmanship.
We have had many successes—Nigeria, Tanganyika, and many more. It would be intolerable to us all if we had to admit that we could not solve the problems of the Territories where the people of our blood have made such a matchless contribution to the economy. It is therefore in East and Central Africa that the Government's policies, must be tested and it is in those policies that we must, and in my view, will, succeed.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the Colonial Secretary have drawn a picture on a very broad canvas, and I should have liked to have followed them in the debate. I shall not do so, first, because it would not be fair to other hon. Members who want to speak and, secondly, because I shall have to commit a compulsory discourtesy in leaving the House at a very early moment to attend to something that I cannot avoid. I shall, therefore, concentrate only on two points that have arisen in both those speeches.
The first is the issue of Jomo Kenyatta, in Kenya. I suppose that among all Englishmen I have known Jomo Kenyatta better and more closely than anyone. I was associated with him during the inter-war years when, in the Independent Labour Party—and not in the Communist Party, as has often been said—he was very active in this country in urging the cause of African independence.
I was associated with him also in Kenya itself, in 1950, when it was alleged by those who have since condemned him that he was beginning to organise Mau Mau. With my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I was in Kenya in 1952, just after Jomo Kenyatta was arrested. I feel it absolutely essential today to say this about him. During the inter-war years, when I knew him closely in this country, he


never, by word or by character, suggested that he would be an advocate of violence in Kenya.
Further, in 1950, when he was alleged to be planning Mau Mau, I was in the closest association with him in Kenya in preparing a programme of activity on constitutional and on political lines. That programme, with his inspiration, led the Kikuyu tribe—which is supposed to have been largely responsible for Mau Mau—to look to this House of Commons and to the Legislature in Nairobi, and not to the policies of violence that Jomo Kenyatta is alleged to have advocated.
The first item in that programme was a great petition on the land question signed, at least with their thumb marks, by over 63,000 Africans. I presented it to this House in 1950, and the point I seek to make is that if Jomo Kenyatta, in 1950, was really planning Mau Mau he would not have been carrying out a campaign in Kenya among his fellow Africans asking them to petition this House, asking them to look to this House, and asking them to think in terms of the advance of the Legislature in Kenya itself.
Again, Jomo Kenyatta was the President of the Kenya African Union. He had been arrested in 1952. When my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and I went to Kenya at that date, at the invitation of Mr. Kenyatta himself, we issued an appeal to all the African people against Mau Mau and against violence. Hundreds of thousands of copies of that appeal were distributed by the Kenya African Union itself. Considering that record, with which I was intimately associated, I find it very difficult indeed to believe that the charges that have been made against Jomo Kenyatta are justified.
I do not propose now to deal with the trial, but even if the sentence at that trial was justified there has never been any finding against Jomo Kenyatta that identified him with the subsequent oath takings and obscene, violent atrocities in Kenya. The only oath that has ever been laid against Jomo Kenyatta has been one on the basis of political activity. I have rarely known of a more shameful, a more outrageous, a more utterly unfair campaign against any public man than that conducted, particularly from

the benches opposite, against Jomo Kenyatta.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it has now been understood in Kenya itself that the release of this man is absolutely essential to the unity and to the stability of that territory. It is not only the Africans who are demanding it. The Government there are themselves demanding it. The Legislature is demanding it. All the African parties are demanding it. Even the Africans who were known as loyalist during the Mau Mau emergency—the sons of Chief Wihuru, who was himself murdered by Mau Mau—have demanded it. The European leaders have demanded it, and so have the Asian leaders, the Arab leaders and the religious leaders. Only the obstinacy of a few British civil servants in Nairobi, and of the Governor —unfortunately, until this moment, supported by the right hon. Gentleman—is preventing the release of Jomo Kenyatta which is necessary if Kenya is to advance with unity and stability.
One other thing I want to say with equal emphasis. I find it difficult to express the feeling of sympathy and support that I have felt towards the Colonial Secretary during recent years. My whole attitude towards the Government's colonial policy has been largely changed by what he has done. Therefore, when I criticise him, as I now shall criticise very strongly indeed, it is with very great personal regret.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that what has happened in Northern Rhodesia is one of the most discreditable features in the whole of our colonial policy. I justify that by reminding the House that the Colonial Secretary called a conference in London of the representatives of the various parties.
Under the influence of Sir Roy Welensky, the Government party declined to come to that conference. Instead, Sir Roy sent emissaries, and my first charge against the right hon. Gentleman is that when that conference was meeting in London he paid more attention to the those emissaries, behind the scenes, than he did to the official delegates who attended the conference itself. The conference was kept waiting while discussions took place with these "in the background" representatives of Sir Roy Welensky, on whose invitation the United Federal Party had declined to


attend the conference. The humiliation which the official delegates felt at that point was very deep indeed.
A proposal was adopted at that conference. It was not a proposal which in any way reflected African demand, but it gave the Africans the chance, at least, that they would gain an equal representation with the Europeans and, indeed, with liberal European support, would possibly obtain a majority in the Legislature against the more reactionary views of the United Federal Party. Because that was the case—unsatisfactory as that Constitution was—the Africans, at that time, were prepared to accept it.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the new proposals do not break the letter and spirit of that decision, but I say that they have destroyed that decision. They have destroyed the hope of unity in Northern Rhodesia behind the new Constitution. They have led to a position where the African movement will boycott it because of its unfairness. I have sometimes described Kenneth Kuanda as the Gandhi of Africa. He is a man of gentle spirit, without violence in his character who was doing his utmost to guide the African movement on to a line which would progress without violence. The right hon. Gentleman, by the changes he has made in this Constitution, has absolutely destroyed that opportunity in Northern Rhodesia.
Without going into the complexities of this Constitution, and of the changes being made, I shall mention it only in two respects. The first effect has been that while before there were opportunities of African—European parity, that has been destroyed. Everyone knows now that, on this Constitution, not merely the Africans will not be able to get that representation. It means also that it is weighted now even against the liberal Europeans. It is now just a gift to the United Federal Party to obtain a majority in the territory. Thus, when the right hon. Gentleman has made this change, while he may say that it is not a change in the letter and in the spirit, it is a change, in effect, which has meant this deplorable deterioration of the situation in Northern Rhodesia.
The second point is that Sir Roy Welensky and his party denounced the first draft on the ground that it was

racialist. About 90 hon. Members who were in opposition to it signed a Motion that it was racialist. But now the changed Constitution is far more racialist than the one before. It is more racialist in two special respects: first, the percentage, or the 400 who have to be obtained before a candidate can succeed, is not to be on the basis of the upper roll or the lower roll, which contained Africans and Europeans, but is to be on the basis of the Europeans and the Africans separately, whichever the roll. That is far more racialist than the preceding constitution.
Secondly, the Asians, Arabs and the non-Europeans who are not African are to be taken out of that plan altogether. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to justify it on the ground that it has been done in Kenya, but he cannot possibly say that it is not more racialist. It adds up to what is, in effect, racial apartheid so far as the Asian and Arab population is concerned.
I am saying this in criticism of the right hon. Gentleman with very great regret. He must be an unhappy man as he sees the present position in Northern Rhodesia, with all the appalling possibilities of racial conflict, which may result from the change in the Constitution which he has accepted.
I had intended to say a word about Southern Rhodesia, but I will say only that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's primary responsibility. It is the primary responsibility of the Secretary of State for Commononwealth Relations, but as a result of the policy of the present Government in Central Africa we are likely to have a situation there which may repeat some of the terrible consequences which have happened in Northern Africa. I pray that it may not be so. I pray that, even at this hour, the right hon. Gentleman may reverse the disastrous policies which are leading to these conclusions.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Although my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary knows that I do not approve of or agree with all his policies, I thought that the attack made on him in the latter part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) was extremely unfair and without any foundation; but I will refer to that later.
What worries me in these debates on Central and East Africa is that I do not think that we are getting down to the real problem of that part of the world, or of the forces that are, in fact, against our interests and African interests. Next Monday there will be a debate on Berlin and we shall have the concerted policy which this country follows, concerted with America and with our allies in Europe and that will be directed towards containing Communism away from Western Europe. In that debate, I am sure that we shall have the lunatic extreme Left-wing view attacking the point of view of both Front Benches. That is the common picture.

Mr. Dingle Foot: And the lunatic extreme Right.

Mr. Turton: But when we are dealing with the problem of Africa it is equally in the orbit of the East-West struggle. One finds the two Front Benches in agreement. But some hon. Members hold different views, primarily because they realise that some of the policy, or lack of policy, in Africa does exactly (what Russia is trying to do in Africa. In support of that remark I remind hon. Members that Mr. Molotov, in 1953, outlined the basic formula for Communism in Africa as follows:
A period of decolonialisation…will be followed by a general independence. Then a period of unbelievable disorder. There will be political and economic anarchy. Afterwards, and then only, the dawn of Communism will rise.
That is the plan of the Communist Powers in this part of Africa. It should be the resolve of both sides of the Committee, except for the lunatic element, or perhaps I should say the extreme Left-wing, to avoid that happening, with economic and political disorder preceding Communism. Those hon. Members who read in the Sunday Telegraph of 16th July the amazing story of Mr. Okotcla, the Nigerian, will realise the forces which are working for subversion in Africa so as to promote economic and political disorder. That being the position, we who are trying to hold the position in Africa should work out our policy on three basic principles.
First, we should lay down principles of policy and stick to them. Secondly, we should ensure that we are working

for our aim of a multi-racial partnership irrespective of colour or race. It should be a true partnership. Thirdly—this is probably the most important—we must ensure that economic advancement precedes political advancement. If political advancement precedes economic advancement, it will be followed by economic anarchy.
That is where I judge my right hon. Friend's policies to have gone wrong in the period since he assumed office. I hope that in anything I say in criticising hint he will acquit me of having anything but an extremely high personal regard for him. After all, when I left the staff of the 50th Division, in the war, my right hon. Friend succeeded me on the staff. When he left the Ministry of Health I took over from him and tried to follow the admirable policy which I believed that he had worked out on health. There is nothing personal in my criticism.
I believe that since my right hon. Friend left the Ministry of Labour and succeeded Lord Boyd, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, he has not maintained the first principle I mentioned, namely, that we must lay down principles and be consistent. I will illustrate that first by Northern Rhodesia, because I think that that will show where he has gone wrong.
In the 1958 Constitution Lord Boyd—Mr. Lennox-Boyd, as he then was—laid down four principles of policy. First, politics should be encouraged to develop on party and not on racial lines. Secondly, we should begin to move away from the present system of racial representation in the Legislative Council. Thirdly, the constitutional advance now to be settled should be durable and not subject to drastic change every few years. Fourthly, the franchise must be one which will give the vote to those who are contributing to the wealth and welfare of the country.
Those principles in the 1958 Constitution are the same as those embodied in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, which will be the subject of a referendum tomorrow. All hon. Members will hope that the Southern Rhodesian referendum will pass successfully and that by that means we shall get another stage of advance in Southern Rhodesia


and the aim of the Dominion Party will be defeated. We all want the referendum to succeed.

Mr. D. Foot: The first referendum?

Mr. Turton: I mean a referendum conducted by secret ballot. The hon. and learned Member is probably talking of some mockery which took place yesterday, which was not a referendum at all.
Where my right hon. Friend went wrong was that when he produced the White Paper in February he did not attempt to make the Constitution nonracial. It has been altered to make it work, and we have seen the complexities and racialism which are in the present solution. It would have been far better if my right hon. Friend had been consistent with the principles laid down in the Lennox-Boyd Constitution and had said, "We must now ensure that more Africans are in the Legislative Council in Northern Rhodesia. The right way to achieve this is to increase the number of special constituencies in the rural areas, where undoubtedly those to be elected will be responsible Africans". That would have effected my right hon. Friend's aim.
As a result, there would have been more Africans in the Legislative Council, and it would not have been a racial solution. Under the Lennox-Boyd Constitution, all voters on both rolls were voting in each constituency. The great weakness of the present Constitution is that in most constituencies the two rolls are being separated. One roll votes in one constituency and the other roll votes in another. That is the core of the racial character of the present Constitution.
When the Constitution was first announced the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that it would require a slide rule to work it out. That was a very fair comment. For that reason, it will not have success and I doubt very much whether it can be durable. However, I know that there is a great amount of good will in Northern Rhodesia and in the Federation. Although I dislike the Constitution, I hope that everyone will co-operate to make it work until we can get what we must get in the future, namely, a Constitution more non-racial in character.
One aspect of the Northern Rhodesian Constitution which has never been made clear is whether my right hon. Friend is continuing the provision in the 1958 Constitution by which we were proceeding to a common roll. The whole idea in Northern Rhodesia, as laid down by Lord Boyd, was that the prosperity of the country was to be increased to such an extent that it would eventually reach the position of having one roll. Therefore, the lower roll was to be temporary in character.
In our first debate I asked my right hon. Friend to answer me on that point. So far as I know, I have not received a reply, either in the House of Commons or in correspondence. If my right hon. Friend has given me the reply in a letter, I apologise for having overlooked it. It is important that it should be stated publicly whether it is my right hon. Friend's aim to follow the Lennox-Boyd principle of 1946 to achieve a common roll. As I see it, the unity of Northern Rhodesia depends upon it.
The only merit of the present Constitution is that it is so complicated that nobody can calculate how it will work out in practice. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough does not have the mathematical ingenuity to work it out. I do not believe that any man alive, either in Africa or in this country, knows how all these complicated permutations and combinations will work out. My right hon. Friend, with his great intelligence, may regard that as a merit, but it is also a weakness. It would have been far better if we had had a more simple constitution

Mr. Iain Macleod: May I say to my right hon. Friend, who is praising the 1958 Constitution, in which there was considerable merit, at the expense of the 1961 Constitution, that in November, 1958, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to the Constitution of that year as a maze of complete incomprehensibility.

Mr. Turton: I agree. My right hon. Friend will, however, know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has progressed in his intellectual capacity since then. We now have the Southern Rhodesia Constitution, which is on all fours with the 1958 Constitution. I have not heard the hon. Member for Cardiff,


South-East say that he finds it a maze which he cannot understand. He has told us that he finds the present Constitution for Northern Rhodesia completely impossible to understand.
I turn now to Kenya, where, too, the then Mr. Lennox-Boyd laid down certain principles upon which we should work our policy of advancement. He did that on 22nd April, 1959, in an Adjournment debate, when he specified the four conditions for political advancement as being, first, that there should be sufficient understanding of parliamentary institutions and a sufficient sense of responsibility in public affairs. That was to be the first prerequisite for political advancement. The second was that there should be a sufficient measure of cooperation between various communities to ensure mutual toleration.
The third was that there should be a reasonable prospect that any Government would be able to ensure for the people of Kenya a fair standard of living in an expanding economy. The last condition was that there should be a competent and experienced Civil Service. Added to that was the overriding condition of a safeguard for all existing holders of land, of all races, in Kenya. That was laid down by Lord Boyd on 22nd April, 1959.
On Thursday last, my right hon. Friend said that he stood by those principles. I want, therefore, to ask him one or two questions upon them. What prospects are there of mutual toleration, which was one of the principles laid down by Lord Boyd in that Constitution, when we may be reaching the position that Jomo Kenyatta, to whom recent reference has been made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough—I am sorry that the hon. Member has not remained to hear what other hon. Members have to say on his speech—and whom the Governor described as the "leader to darkness and death," is, we understand from The Times of yesterday, to be released in one or two days, or, judging by what Mr. Blundell has said, to be released within three weeks? What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say about the release of Jomo Kenyatta did not give me any feeling that The Times or Mr. Blundell were far wrong.
We must remind my right hon. Friend of what the Governor said in his speech of 9th May last year. Describing Jomo Kenyatta as the "leader to darkness and death," he said that his
return to political life in Kenya at the present time would be a disaster…I am mindful of the promises given by my predecessors to those brave men who helped their country to rid itself of the Mau Mau horror.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that he must not—I am sure he will not—be deluded by the easy assumption of innocence, quite contrary to what judges said at the trial and quite contrary to what was said by the Governor, whose remarks were taken up by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. It is one of the attractive qualities of the hon. Member that he always believes the best of everybody and, therefore, he is so frequently deluded. At a time when all the evidence in Kenya is that crimes of violence are worse than since Mau Mau was put down, it would be a tragedy if the Secretary of State allowed the Governor, in spite of what he said on 9th May last year, to release Kenyatta and to allow these Mau Mau gangs to increase in strength.
I beg my right hon. Friend to remember that he has a duty to the House of Commons. Should he be taking an unwise decision, he has a duty to come to the House and state it—as, I believe, he undertook to do, if I understood him aright—before he reaches that decision. I want my right hon. Friend to realise that if Kenyatta is released it will cause a great shock to many people both in Kenya and in this country. I do not believe that it would aid Kenya to settle down to that mutual toleration that is one of the cardinal principles.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question or two concerning land. It is satisfactory that K.A.N.U. and K.A.D.U. are to talk over these land problems. All of us, whatever view we hold, hope that there will be a successful outcome of the talks, but I do not think that Her Majesty's Government or we in Parliament can escape from our obligations in this matter. After all, these men, both European and African, hold their land on title derived from the gift of Her Majesty's Government.
I appreciate the Secretary of State's difficulty about making any form of


compensation announcement at the present time. We cannot, however, escape from our clear moral and legal obligation to stand by these titles that have been derived. Men have gone out from this country after each of the wars having been told, "Go to Kenya. You will be given land title from us and we will look after you."
I should like to go back to 22nd April, 1959, and quote exactly what was said by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Boyd. His words were:
This policy will include suitable safeguards against the economic or political exploitation of all those who hold rights in the land…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 567.]
Will my right hon. Friend tell us in what way he is carrying out that policy which he promised last Thursday to carry out and what safeguards he is giving to both African and European landholders in Kenya against economic or political exploitation?
It is for these reasons that I feel great disquiet at present about the position in East and Central Africa. People talk too much about there being a "wind of change" in Africa without realising that that wind of change is fomented by agitators and taken advantage of by the Communist Party. We must remember that we have great obligations not merely to Europeans in Africa, but to the loyal Africans who stood by this country and who are the vast majority of the Africans in Africa. They do not want Kenya, Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland to suffer the atrocities and barbarities which have happened in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa.
But if we allow political advance to precede economic advance too rapidly we shall have a return to primitivism and barbarism and all the atrocities that happened in Mau Mau and have been happening both in the Congo and in Angola.
This is a warning, and the way to avoid these things happening is for us Ito connect our policy in Africa with our allies in America and in Europe. There is far too much misunderstanding between the major countries on what is happening in Africa. We should take more active steps to secure a concerted policy. We should also make it clear that we are working out a colonial policy on prin-

ciples which have been handed down from one Colonial Secretary to another and that we mean to stick to those principles.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I usually quarrel with those who say in debate that they do not intend to follow the previous speaker in his remarks, because I believe that the House of Commons is a place for debate. I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on this occasion, however, with the leave of the House, for the very good reason that I know that a number of my hon. Friends will do so and I want to allow time for them. I rise on this occasion only to put in a special plea for Tanganyika and to reinforce the eloquent appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
I do that for the simple reason that I have had the good fortune to visit the Territory on several occasions. Like all who go there and study it, one gets much in love with the place and the people. That feeling, of course, is greatly encouraged by the happy and harmonious transformation towards independence which is taking place there, a process in which all races and all people have taken part and are taking part at present. It is perhaps the only area in Africa of that size where the constitutional and political change has taken place with none of the hatred associated with it in other areas, based on race or class. In Tanganyika the people are working very happily and successfully in building a new territory. To whatever race they belong they regard Tanganyika as their land and they all call themselves Tanganyikans.
It would be quite unforgivable if this brilliant experiment in Africa were to be imperilled at this stage by financial considerations of not a major character at all. Before I elaborate what I have to say about that, I should like to take up one point made by the Colonial Secretary when he said that even five years ago Mr. Julius Nyerere would have been regarded by some as an extreme Nationalist African leader. That may have been so on the other side of the House, but it certainly was not so on this side. I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for


Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who did so much at a critical stage to smooth the way for Mr. Nyerere in Tanganyika and who frequently referred to him in speeches in this House.
I can remember how even in 1957 my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and I went to see the then Colonial Secretary and urged that it was time that Mr. Nyerere and the then Governor Lord Twining met more frequently. They had not talked for more than a year. I was glad to find in September of that year when I reached Tanganyika that good relationships had once more been resumed. The moral is that sometimes the judgment of my hon. Friends in these matters in relation to persons is better than on the other side of the House. However, that is past history and we are faced now with a financial situation which the present chief Minister of Tanganyika considers to be one of perilous character.
I was glad to hear the Colonial Secretary say that he had been able to make an improved offer, but he gave no figure and I imagine that the offer was still inadequate by the standards by which Mr. Nyerere is judging the commitments which his Government will have to face after independence in December. Even in the serious economic position in which we are today, financial stringency need not imperil this brilliant experiment in Tanganyika. There is no doubt that that is what Mr. Nyerere thinks of the present position.
According to a report in The Times of his Press conference in London last week, Mr. Nyerere, presumably in soberly measured words, because he is not given to extravagant talk, said:
We were absolutely shocked when throughout all the discussions Her Majesty's Government were pleading poverty.
It is true that, later, he said:
Theoretically matters have improved, but in practice matters have not improved and I am going back very disappointed.
Apparently, what Mr. Nyerere meant by saying that theoretically matters had improved was the suggestion, which I understand has been made, that more grants or loans would be available in 1965, 1966 and 1967. But obviously Tanganyika's need will be immediately after independence, and I

suppose that the first year or two after next December will be even more important than 1965, 1966 and 1967. I hope that the Colonial Secretary, therefore, will not figure in the same way as Dr. Johnson's patron. He will recall that Dr. Johnson asked whether a patron was not one who gave a man a lifebelt when he had reached the bank. The cash will be needed in Tanganyika now.
It is needed for two things principally. First, there is the great development scheme which has been drawn up by the experts of the World Bank and the water survey scheme which is to go with it. I think that all those who have studied the position in East Africa, from the days of the Royal Commission on East Africa right through to the United Nations mission to that country, will agree that economic development is quite indispensable if the very low standard of living is to be abolished in a measurable time.
My hon. Friend mentioned a figure of between £12 and £16 per head in Tanganyika. I think that that may well be too optimistic, for reasons which I do not want to go into now but based largely on the way in which statistics have been collected. Even accepting that figure, it is extremely low. Yet it need not be.
The World Bank and its specialists have recently made a survey in the Rufiji Basin, and I understand that it is thought that with a proper irrigation scheme at least half that area would be capable of producing food. Any of us who have been in the Territory must have been impressed from time to time by what has been done by means of the limited water experiments so far. I remember seeing at Makonde in the Southern Province an experiment by a water engineer who was appalled that many African women had to walk for eight hours for their water supplies.
By getting hold of a second-hand engine and pumping the water up a 1,000 ft. escarpment and distributing the water to several points, he was able to save most of them having to do that. The result was that the social climate of the people was revolutionised within a few months. If there is one factor more than another in the economic development of Tanganyika which will pay handsome dividends it is the water scheme.
In the 361,000 square miles of Tanganyika there are only 9 million people. As has already been pointed out, the Tanganyika territory is now the largest territory remaining in the Colonial Commonwealth. Therefore, with a limited application of finance to schemes of this kind an economic return within a period of years can be guaranteed as far as anything can be guaranteed in Africa. If these schemes, which must be started now, were held up by uncertainty about finance, it is likely that the whole peaceful experiment in Tanganyika would fail.
The political consequences of this would be most serious. Political disaster in Tanganyika would affect the whole of the possibilities of federation and the future of the East African High Commission, and so on. Here we have an opportunity with a large territory led by a gifted statesman which can be the basis for future development of East Africa. I plead with the Colonial Secretary that nothing should be done that would impair this hopeful future.
The other reason why the Government of Tanganyika needs a loan quickly relates to the Civil Service. Mr. Nyerere and those who follow him have adopted the policy that civil servants who care to stay on in the territory will be welcome and have nothing to fear. People have come to see me about this, and I have said that I think that Tanganyika is one of the places in Africa where there is a good future.
But, again, finance is wanted. This was made very clear in the Press interview which Mr. Nyerere gave in London last week. He said
that the sole justification for keeping an expensive expatriate civil service in the country was that they could help in the development of the country. If the British Government were not prepared to produce the funds that Tanganyika had been led to expect, it would be embarrassing for both the Tanganyika Government and the individual civil servants, who genuinely wanted to help in the country's development
Here we have people who have been trained and who want to stay and help the country. What is involved is a cash consideration of a not gigantic amount. As has already been said, the cost of a couple of the nuclear warships which we have laid down would more than meet this bill.
I do not want to make trite political points, but for ten years we have been told that we have never had it so good. Are we really to appear at the bar of world public opinion saying that we cannot possibly by one means or another find £24 million over the next three years for a most successful transfer of a territory from colonial trusteeship to independence? I do not believe that is true. I do not believe that the people of Britain think that or would support it. After all, only a few weeks ago concessions were made in this House of £80 million to one group of people.
I felt embarrassed when I read the concluding part of Mr. Nyerere's Press statement. I read:
Throughout his press conference Mr. Nyerere spoke more in sorrow than in anger, remarking that Tanganyika's friendship with Britain did not depend on money.
That is absolutely true.
If Britain were really too poor to help he would ask his people to make sacrifices and not to ask for money. It seemed, however, that being moderate meant that you did less well than less moderate people.
This we have seen so often in our colonial history. If one makes a fuss, has strikes or causes civil war, all kinds of concessions are given one. That would have happened to Mr. Nyerere if in the last few years he had acted like some other leaders. He would have been brought here and lodged in Claridge's and all sorts of concessions would have been made. But Mr. Nyerere is statesmanlike and bases his attitude on the practice of British parliamentary democracy. In the light of that, it is shocking that he should feel, and thus speak, like that.
Mr. Nyerere also said:
If a revolution took place in Tanganyika they would spend millions. Somehow the balance of payments problem would disappear.
He also said:
There was a reluctance on Britain's part to put money into a less exciting type of battle against mosquitoes.
He added:
Somehow it would ruin the economy of the British Government if money were found fm this purpose.
He concluded that
Tanganyika's stability was used as an argument why it should not get financial help.


In other words, the more virtuous one has been in one's colonial life the more these items are trotted out against one.
This is a shameful and pettifogging incident. I hope that, irrespective of party points, the Government will reconsider the matter and ensure that this territory, which has done so well and has gone forward without bloodshed, shall not have its whole future imperilled by lack of very small cash help.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier drew a vivid picture of the remarkable way in which our dependent territories had become independent in an orderly and peaceful fashion since the war.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has left the Chamber, because I most profoundly disagreed with almost every sentiment contained in his speech. He chose to attack the policies of the Colonial Secretary on the ground that there had been some departure from the principles which had been laid down both in Kenya and in Northern Rhodesia by the former Colonial Secretary, Lord Boyd.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton went on to say that he thought that a good deal too much was heard these days about the wind of change in Africa. It so happens that during the past two or three years my travels have taken me to thirteen independent African countries, many of which I have visited more than once. To suggest, as my right hon. Friend did, that the wind of Change is something that one can turn on or off at will seems to me to be so totally unrealistic as to make it almost impossible to discuss these problems in logical and coherent terms.
After all, one of the great events which has occurred in Africa in the last two years has been the liquidation—in a period of eighteen months—of the entire French colonial empire. This has been done by General de Gaulle, a man who is not noted for unduly radical or liberal views. Admittedly the great and terrifying problem of Algeria remains, but, nevertheless, about eighteen independent African countries have been created by the disappearance of the French empire

in Africa over the last two years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton appeared completely to ignore that.
Then, of course, there has been the appalling tragedy in the Congo—an area the size of Western Europe—in which the Belgians took not eighteen months in which to liquidate their responsibilities but only six months. How can we, in view of these circumstances—including, more recently, the catastrophe that is occurring in Angola—pretend that our parts of Africa—the British parts—are totally isolated from these events elsewhere?
I want to say something about Kenya. I believe that we owe a very great debt to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary for the skilful and courageous way in which he handled the Lancaster House Conference just over a year ago. There can be little doubt that the constitutional settlement reached at Lancaster House has saved Kenya from an explosion which would otherwise have occurred. My right hon. Friend has, in my view, been the victim of a most unfair and ill-considered series of personal attacks over his policy for Kenya.

Mr. Awbery: The attacks have come from the hon. Member's own party.

Mr. Berkeley: I am sad to say that the attacks have come from certain hon. Members, though a distinct minority, in my own party. But now I turn to what I thought was a most unfair charge against my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The hon. Gentleman is not normally unfair, but I thought that the strictures which he directed at my right hon. Friend, when he accused him of being unaware of and indifferent to the problems of the European farmers, were quite unnecessary and untrue.
I have many times heard my right hon. Friend talk about the problems and difficulties which the European farmers in Kenya are facing at the present time, and I am convinced that the present talks taking place between the Kenya African Democratic Union and the Kenya African National Union owe a great deal to the initiative my right hon. Friend has taken. But what he has always said—and in this I am sure that


he is right—is that once we admit the principle of compensation to cover possible dispossession, we are merely giving added incentive to the extremists to be more extreme. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will realise that he was not being altogether fair to my right hon. Friend on that point.
I also want to say something about the position of Jomo Kenyatta. A few weeks ago I made a speech in the provinces when I said that the time had now come when Mr. Kenyatta should be released. I have become more convinced of this as the weeks have gone by. I see my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) turning round. I am glad to see that, not in a speech but in an article, he subscribes to that view as well. I believe that Mr. Kenyatta should be released but it gives me no great joy to say so, because I cannot believe that he was quite as unconnected with the events of Mau-Mau as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) suggests. Nevertheless, I believe his release to be vitally necessary for several reasons.
First, every day that Mr. Kenyatta remains under restriction, his prestige and reputation will grow. Secondly, I am sure that unless he is released within the next few weeks the present Government in Kenya will fall, and I believe that this Government of moderate Africans and moderate Europeans—including Mr. Ngala and Mr. Blundell, to mention only two—is one we have to support.
Thirdly, if Mr. Kenyatta is released, I think that there is a real chance that some of the K.A.N.U. members will join the present Government, which would greatly strengthen it, because one cannot indefinitely depend on a Government which includes Africans only of the smaller tribes. Therefore, a K.A.N.U. element in the Government is of great importance. The release of Mr. Kenyatta could bring this about.
Fourthly, and most important of all, it is necessary that Mr. Kenyatta should be released while the British security forces are still in Kenya. I believe that the security position is likely to be eased by his release, but if there were trouble I believe that it would be necessary for

us to have forces there to deal with it. Nothing could be worse than if, let us say, Kenya were to achieve full independence in two or three years time and Mr. Kenyatta's release were delayed until that point. That would be calamitous from every point of view.
Now I turn to Northern Rhodesia. I cannot pretend that I am vastly enamoured of the present Northern Rhodesian constitutional settlement. As I am sure other hon. Members have done, I have given a great deal of thought to it, and I would very much have preferred in Northern Rhodesia something on the lines of the Kenya settlement. I believe that we should have had an African elected majority, and that, in the interest of the Europeans themselves, it would probably have been better to have had a common roll with a minority of reserved seats, as the Europeans have under the present arrangements in Kenya. But for reasons which we all know, the position in Northern Rhodesia is more complicated than that in Kenya, and I believe that it was asking too much of my right hon. Friend to expect him to be able to pull this off in Northern Rhodesia as well as in Kenya.
Let us examine this Constitution which everybody says is so complicated that it cannot possibly be understood. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, made the point that nobody could suggest that the present Constitution is any more complicated than the 1958 Constitution which, with my rudimentary mathematical knowledge. I have always found impossible to comprehend.
Certain principles are laid down in the new Constitution, and the first is one which has not been brought out altogether in this debate. It is the simple fact that, if the initial hurdle can be overcome, there is, in this Constitution, a built-in African majority. There is no doubt about that, because the Africans comprise the whole of the lower roll and 11 per cent. of the upper roll. The members for the national seats will be returned by equalising the rolls—50 per cent. of the upper roll and 50 per cent. of the lower roll.
As the Africans have 11 per cent. on the upper roll, they will have a clear


majority over the Europeans of 55 per cent. as against 45 per cent. when the two rolls are equalised. There can be no doubt that if the hurdle were successfully overcome there would be an African majority under this constitutional settlement.
There are many peripheral matters which have a certain marginal importance, but the only question which really matters is whether this hurdle of 12½ per cent., or 400 votes, will be too much either for the U.F.P. or Mr. Kaunda and his supporters to surmount. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough spoke in an immoderate way about this Constitution, because it is far from clear that there is a definite, built-in irreversible majority for the U.F.P. I think that the evidence is all the other way.
Let us examine this qualification. What it provides for is that any European has to get 400 African votes to qualify, and any African has to get 12½ per cent. of the European votes, which is considerably less than 400 votes and probably about 250 to 280 European votes. If the hon. Member for Eton and Slough had remained, he could have told us why he supposed that this Constitution was a sell-out to the U.F.P., when that party now has to get as many votes in each constituency as it got in the whole of Northern Rhodesia at the last election in 1959. It then got 480 votes for the whole of Northern Rhodesia. It is true that there are vastly more Africans on the new electoral roll—the number has increased from 7,000 to 70,000—but it is hardly likely that the bulk of those extra Africans will be supporters of Sir Roy Welensky's party. If out of 7,000 African votes last time Sir Roy Welensky's party scooped only 400, will it now be able to get the 400 votes in every one of the seven double-member constituencies which it needs in order to qualify? I think that it is highly doubtful.
Kenneth Kaunda may well have some difficulty in scraping up the 250 to 280 European votes which will be necessary for his party to qualify, but the most hopeful possibility in this respect is that Kenneth Kaunda's party and Sir John Moffat's party will come to an electoral arrangement. If they were to do that, they would almost certainly prove to be unbeatable, and I have no hesitation in

declaring my preference. I very much wish to see, as a result of this settlement, a majority coalition government led by Mr. Kaunda and Sir John Moffat. That is the most promising thing we could have, with moderate Africans such as Mr. Kaunda and statesmanlike Europeans such as Sir John Moffat. That would be the most hopeful sort of régime which Northern Rhodesia could have in this transitional phase.

Mr. Wall: Has my hon. Friend not left out one factor in his calculations, that the African National Congress, a moderate African party, may find itself playing a big rôle in the next election?

Mr. Berkeley: That is very possible. If there were a number of A.N.C. members and a number of United National Independence Party members and a number of liberal members with a combined majority over the U.F.P., I would not object in the least.
One of the complications about Northern Rhodesia and its relationship with the Federation as a whole is that there has never been a territory about which there has been so much double talk. The word "partnership" is constantly being used. There is no doubt that to many people who use it the word "partnership" means white domination. There are others to whom it means a sharing of power between the races, but to far too many people in the U.F.P. partnership means the former. Then we have the phrase "moderate opinion", which to some means the supporters of the U.F.P., so that everybody else is extremist. This makes sensible and logical discussion about progress in the Federation extremely difficult.
I am convinced that the survival of the Federation will be impossible if it becomes apparent to the Africans that federation itself is holding back their political advance. That is one of the great dangers at present. I hope that the Constitution might provide a kind of government which would make further progress more possible. If the Northern Rhodesian moderate African has indisputable evidence that it is federation and only federation which is holding back his political advance, it is inconceivable that federation can survive for very long. Certain members of the United Federal Party and certain Ministers whom I have met, and by whom I


have been somewhat alarmed, and certain hon. Members who have given unquestioned support to the United Federal Panty, have not seemed to realise, when talking of the great need to preserve federation, that they themselves are doing more than anything else to make the break-up of the Federation inevitable.
I can well remember a few months ago in a certain African territory going to see a performance of Hamlet in Arabic. It was quite a test of endurance, as hon. Members may imagine. In the middle of the performance, there was an interval of about three quarters of an hour while the stage was literally sawn up in order to make a suitable setting for the grave digger's scene. Some of the over-enthusiastic friends of the United Federal Party, in the country and in the House, with scarcely less noise and certainly with equal enthusiasm, have been preparing a grave digger's scene for the Federation.
The Monckton Commission outlined the arguments in favour of the Federation being preserved, and all of us would wish to see it preserved, but the most interesting observation that came from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East today was the concept that even if the Federation as at present existing were brought to an end, there might well be a larger and in some senses more promising institution to which the constituent parts of the present Federation could adhere.
I hope that we shall not say to ourselves that if the Federation upon which we have spent so much hope and time and energy fails, there is nothing left for these territories but isolation and poverty. That is not true. There is a wider and more hopeful prospect of a much larger federation, consisting of the whole of East and Central Africa, rich in population and rich in resources, which could contribute substantially to the stability of East and Central Africa.
It is sometimes fashionable for Members of the Opposition to speak in somewhat derogatory terms about our Imperial past. Whenever I have travelled in Africa, I have had a tremendous sense of pride at the achievements which have been brought about by British rule, whether in East, West or Central

Africa. I have never subscribed to the now fashionable Left-wing view that everything which the Imperialists have done is wrong.
I am not at all sure that what we are now doing throughout the Continent of Africa is not in some ways more remarkable. As was said earlier, the French evacuated their colonial empire in about eighteen months and there are countries like Guinea and Mali which are not tremendously satisfactory reminders or French colonial power. The Belgians, alas, got involuntarily involved in chaos and confusion in the Congo. The Portuguese are now faced with the possibility of yielding in some measure in their colonial policies, or facing a massacre. I believe that we are the only Colonial Power which has apparently so far successfully learned the art—

Mr. Awbery: What about Cyprus?

Mr. Berkeley: I have an answer on Cyprus. Had it not been for the minority problem of Cyprus there would have been no bloodshed there. There was no desire on the part of anybody in the Government to retain Cyprus, except to protect the minority there which might otherwise have suffered.
So far in West Africa we have granted independence, and we have left behind us a legacy of admiration and goodwill. It makes one tremendously proud to be British if one visits these territories and sees the increased number of British people living there giving advice and help, and one sees the very real esteem in which we are held.
Later this year this great experimental process is moving over to East Africa. We have very few remaining territories in which this process has to be carried through. As my right hon. Friend said, in the main they are territories where there has been, and indeed still is, and we hope will continue to be, a sizeable European and British population. We must all hope that this process can now be carried forward to finality, and that we can do something in Africa which has eluded any other colonial Power—to create a genuinely non-racial society in which race discrimination plays no part, in which the white man makes no attempt to exercise a dominance out of proportion to his numbers and in which the name of Britain will be remembered and honoured for many years to come.

7.3 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I think that hon. Members on this side of the House would feel that in very large measure they were in agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), a sentiment which was not held about the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). But it is at least encouraging to find that there are some hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly some of those who have come in since the last General Election, who take a far more liberal and humanistic view of this problem than some of their colleagues.
The hon. Member for Lancaster made some comments about the general standing of the British in Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary prefaced his remarks by drawing our attention to the difference in our position today compared with what it was in 1945—approximately 500 million people in the Commonwealth in those days; now 43 million, about to be reduced to about 30 million. I should like to say a word about this, because the one thing on which I disagree to some extent with the hon. Member for Lancaster was his expression of a certain feeling of complacency.
I think that it would be true to say that the first, shall we say, 450 million people in the territories with which we are dealing were reasonably well equipped to face the future, but we ought to be honest with ourselves and say that the countries which are now approaching independence are those which in terms of modern development are the newest, the youngest, the least well equipped, the smallest, and the poorest. In other words, what has already been done in the great countries of Asia and the better established countries in West Africa should not lead us into complacency about the position in some of the other countries which are now approaching independence, because their problems are far more acute and they are less well prepared to meet them.
The Colonial Secretary quite properly said a word about the Gambia. That is not the main subject of our debate today, but I think it only right that we should refer to that territory, to which some of us have been, and hope that the Gambia will find a comfortable future in spite of

its rather peculiar historical past. Anyone who has been to Bathurst will agree that it is a most delightful place, with a flavour of Victorian England which is hard to find anywhere else in the world. It is based on an extremely exiguous economy, and one can only hope that the Gambia will find a happy and prosperous future, whether in relation with Senegal or not. It is one of the places which an accident of history brought under the British flag, and one hopes that we are leaving some sort of worth-while legacy there.
I turn now to the main subject of the debate, East and Central Africa. I do not propose to go into great detail about the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia, because that has already been discussed a good deal. I hope that the prognostications of the hon. Member for Lancaster will be fulfilled, and that we will have the kind of election result for which he hopes. I think that all of us on this side of the House would wish for the same thing, but we find it difficult to believe that that is possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's calculation will prove correct.
The remarks of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton on Southern Rhodesia seemed extraordinary. He spoke of the referendum which was attempted yesterday as a mockery, but surely the referendum which is coming tomorrow is also a mockery, in the sense that the vast majority of the people of Southern Rhodesia are excluded from it. Therefore, I do not think that any of us can be comfortable.

Mr. Ronald Russell: Would the hon. Lady contend that the vast majority of the Africans of Southern Rhodesia understand the issues of the referendum?

Mrs. White: Do we understand the issues in our own elections? With respect, I believe that we do not. If we did, we would not have the present Administration of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a matter of elementary justice that the majority of the people of the country should have a voice in their future, which they are denied by the present policy in Southern Rhodesia.
I am not proposing to say too much about Central Africa, because other of


my hon. Friends wish to deal with that subject. I want to speak briefly about two territories in East Africa one of which we infrequently discuss, Uganda. We have today an opportunity of saying a little, though it would be perhaps unwise to say too much, about the Report of the Munster Commission on Uganda. I have read this Report with intense interest, and I very much hope that the conference in September will lead to good results.
I have said that it might not be wise to go into too great detail on this matter, because it is one of the conferences which has not yet got under way, and in which the Colonial Secretary will need all his powers of persuasion and diplomacy if it is to have a successful outcome.
I was glad that the Munster Commission was extremely frank in its Report. It did not mince words. It put the considerations in Uganda very clearly before us, including some of the psychological and personal considerations which weigh very much in that country. When I first went to Uganda the official policy of Her Majesty's Government was apparently firm and inflexible. Uganda was to be administered as a unitary State, and that was that.
But, as so frequently happens in our administration, we pursued contradictory lines of policy at one and the same time, because at the time that we were saying that this was our firm and fixed goal, for one reason or another we were handing over to one section of Uganda, namely, Buganda, from 1944 onwards, under Sir Charles Dundas and successive Governors, a series of special powers which amounted to a complete contradiction of the policy of unitary rule.
If we were going to make Uganda a unitary State in perpetuity there was no sense in pursuing a policy of handing over large and special powers to one section of that country. But that was done, and it would be quite unrealistic not to recognise the fact. Therefore, I give general support to the proposals of the Munster Commission that a special arrangement must be made in connection with the recognition of Buganda. I also agree that we must take into account the psychology of Buganda, and to some extent the other ruler States in

Uganda—the psychology of their own traditional kingship with their own rulers.
Nevertheless, I have the greatest sympathy with the reported remarks made by those who have been discussing this matter only this week with the Governor, that the powers given to Buganda under any settlement should not be such that they can frustrate the central Government. That is essential. I also agree very strongly with the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the proposal that the representatives of Buganda in the central Legislature should be indirectly elected by the Lukiko is an unwise one. I do so partly because it would differentiate Buganda yet again from the rest of the country and partly because it would put an irresistable temptation before the Kabaka to manipulate the representation of Buganda in the central Government.
If Buganda is to live at peace with her neighbours this constant fear of intervention by the Kabaka in the political life of Buganda must in some way be allayed. If he is to be a constitutional monarch, he should be one.

Mr. D. Foot: Why does my hon. Friend say that the Kabaka is not now acting as a constitutional monarch, and not acting on the advice of his Ministers?

Mrs. White: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at page 22 of the Munster Commission Report he will see there something that illustrates the sense of what I am saying. It is said that,
When a new Lukiko was elected in 1959 there were widespread allegations that the chiefs … had engineered the return of members favourably to the Ministry.
I will not argue with my hon. and learned Friend on this point. It is not a completely apposite quotation, but it illustrates the kind of packed elections which are not impossible. I repeat that it would be putting temptation in the way of the Kabaka to allow this, and it would differentiate Buganda undesirably from the rest of Uganda. The Munster Commission suggested that it would be undesirable to have a difference between the Lukiko and the Buganda representatives in the central Government.
But if one had direct elections for both one would suppose that the general


political trend would coincide—in other words, if people had the opportunity of electing members to the Lukiko and also to take part in free elections for the central Government, one could reasonably presume that they would generally vote in the same direction in both cases and, therefore, that that type of conflict ought not to occur in an acute form.
There are other difficulties in the way of peaceful progress in Uganda, among them being the very intense tribal loyalties, and certain cases of acute friction. I will refer only to one, because I raised it in the House some years ago. I refer to the friction between Bunyoro and Buganda over the so-called "lost counties". Those who know the country know that this is a constant source of bitterness and anger between two very important tribal organisations.
The proposals made by the Commission seem sensible. It proposes that there should be a referendum, certainly in two counties, and it suggests that there should be a choice of referendum in a third. That is a good and ingenious proposal. I hope that this problem can be settled before we withdraw entirely from Uganda. It is a legacy of past history in which we were involved, and we have a duty to try to settle the matter before leaving.
I know that this suggestion will not be popular in Buganda. After I raised the matter in the House about four years ago I received a letter from the then Colonial Secretary—Mr. Lennox-Boyd, as he then was—to the effect that my speech had received publicity in Uganda and had caused a certain amount of resentment in Buganda circles. He went on to say:
this is perhaps a good thing … in that it has reminded Buganda that their actions are watched from the United Kingdom.
The reason for my criticism at that time was the treatment by the Buganda Administration of some people of Bunyoro origin in these countries. We hope that the lesson will be learnt by the Buganda that the whole progress of the country will depend on how well each group gets on with its neighbours. We hope that they are aware that their actions now, and the reputation they are building up, will condition their future good fortune when British protection is withdrawn or, on the contrary, will lead

to needless friction and dispute. We implore those who have these disputes, which are quite understandable, to recognise that British protection will not be there for ever. They must learn to live side by side and adopt a spirit of compromise in these matters.
There is one other area of Uganda which faces a different difficulty. That is Karamoja, which is an area unto itself. I hope very much that in any arrangement which we ultimately make about the future of Uganda. Her Majesty's Government will be particularly generous in its recognition of the needs of Karamoja, because it could be an expensive area from the point of view of administration. When making financial arrangements with Uganda, we should recognise that it would be a very big burden for Uganda to have to carry the administration of Karamoja without some special aid.
In speaking of the development of Uganda economically I should like to know whether the Colonial Secretary has yet received the World Bank's Economic Report. We have had one on Tanganyika, but I think that we are still awaiting one for Uganda. I hope 'that we shall have some further opportunity to discuss that. Uganda is a country of great potentiality.
I was readingthe other day a report by the chairman of the Uganda Development Corporation in which he put it graphically, in this way:
For every acre now cultivated in Uganda there are about six acres still untouched
There is a great potential in Uganda. If only the people there can settle their internal differences it should be a country of great wealth and resources.
Having said that about Uganda, I wish now to turn to Tanganyika, where we are facing a much more difficult situation economically. It is a very large country and in many part of it the climate is unfavourable. It does not have as much in the way of natural resources as some of its neighbours and I can only repeat—it has already been said by hon. Members on this side of the House—how shocked we are at the thought that this country, of all countries, should be shabbily treated by Her Majesty's Government at the present time. It is quite monstrous.
We have been talking about our gift for Empire—at least the hon. Member for Lancaster did. Now we are calling the legions home. I think that we should ask ourselves in what circumstances we are doing so and what are we leaving behind. At least, the Romans left roads and aqueducts. In Tanganyika, we are not leaving either roads or aqueducts in sufficient numbers.

Mr. Callaghan: We are leaving a railway that does not pay.

Mrs. White: That is true of railways all over the world.
I have here a report of the Budget speech of Sir Ernest Vasey—who is well known to many of us—which was delivered on 16th May of this year, before the recent talks on economic arrangements for Tanganyika. I must say that one blushes when reading his peroration, in which he says—he is referring primarily to the United Kingdom:
There are friendly hands waiting and willing to help us.
They seem to us rather empty and poorly furnished at the moment.
Sir Ernest gives a complete analysis in his Budget speech of the £24 million development plan which we have been discussing. It is not true that this country is being asked to meet the whole of the £24 million bill. Even some of my hon. Friends were speaking as though the whole of this sum were being asked for from this country, but that is not the case. Tanganyika is proposing to provide some part of this money out of her own resources and by local borrowing.
It is also true that she is hoping, as the Colonial Secretary said, to have a certain amount of other overseas aid, some from the United States and some —not, I am quite certain, from the Soviet Union, but possibly from West Germany. Again, there is some irony about a situation in which, after the German shadowed record in Tanganyika as a colonial Power, we should go back to West Germany for aid.
The sum to be sought by external borrowing, as opposed to some of the colonial development and welfare fund money which must still be there, is £11½ million. It is only £11½ million from all external sources which is required. If we take into account the amount which

we may get from various agencies in the United States, and the possibility of some assistance from West Germany or from other international sources, it is clear that the amount which this country is being asked to provide is not as vast as all that.
To cut it down to £3½ million, which, we understand, is what is being offered, seems to us a most monstrous and shabby thing. This money is needed, as Sir Ernest made clear in his Budget speech, to build up the foundation for progress in Tanganyika. We must build the infrastructure in the next few years. As Sir Ernest says, this is vital and urgent. It is only after having done this that Tanganyika can seriously hope to expand and progress.
Sir Ernest makes very clear, as the World Bank Commission made clear, that it is roads and aqueducts which are great channels of development in such a country. Tanganyika needs money for roads and water, and for education. Those are the three great needs at the moment and it is for this that we are being asked to supply a relatively small amount of money.
If we in this country cannot provide this relatively small amount, I believe that the bitter words, the first bitter words I have ever heard from Julius Nyerere, are justified. Some of us have known him for many years. I remember having a cup of coffee with him in the cafeteria here, when be was trying to decide whether to resign from the Catholic school, in which he was a teacher, in order to obtain complete political freedom, or whether he had no right, with reference to his family, to take that step.
Some of us have known Julius Nyerere for a long time and have watched with admiration the way in which he has grown to his opportunities. He has developed. He is not to be frightened. He has grown in stature and real statesmanship. I am sure that we should be ashamed to feel that we were betraying someone who has acted, I think, with a keener sense of morality than almost any other political person with whom I have come in contact—and that is saying a good deal.
If we look at same of Julius Nyerere's speeches, in which he says:
We must tell our people the truth"—


that is something which Her Majesty's Government might have thought of
—and: We cannot build the character of our people if we fool them and tell them it is easy. Life is not easy"—
one can be absolutely certain, whatever feeling one might have about aid that might be given to some other countries in the world, that in Tanganyika any help given would be used constructively and honestly and not frittered away.
I feel that if nothing else is said in this House today, it is necessary for us to emphasise again and again that we cannot sit back and be satisfied with what we gather are the offers of Her Majesty's Government. It is simple things that Tanganyika needs, but she needs them so very badly. I have mentioned a few, but there are other things, like the new University College, and so on, in which some of us are intensely interested. But the people of Tanganyika cannot achieve these things and make this progress unaided.
There is one other thing about which I hope we may have some clarity from the Under-Secretary. I refer to the position of the expatriate civil servants. The figure given in Tanganyika which would be needed for compensation, for pensions, and so forth, is rather startling. It amounts to more than £9 million, and, as their Finance Minister has said, it is perfectly clear that Tanganyika cannot find that amount from her own resources.
On the other hand, she desperately needs the services of so many of the officers who are now there. An illustration was given by the Prime Minister of Tanganyika in one of his speeches recently, when he said that out of 500 or so qualified medical practitioners in Tanganyika only 15 are Africans. If one takes that sort of balance in the personnel that is available it is quite clear that in many branches of the public service expatriate officers will still be required. One hopes very much that Tanganyika is not going into independence heavily burdened by compensation which she can ill afford to pay. I hope very much that before the end of the debate we shall have reassurance on this matter, which is near to the heart of many of us in this House.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I wish very much that I could follow the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about Uganda and Tanganyika, on which she has been speaking with great knowledge and interest to us all, but not having been to either of those territories, I do not feel justified either in echoing or disagreeing with her remarks, except to say that all of us know that she was certainly right in appealing for generosity to be shown to Tanganyika which, of all our African Colonies, most richly deserves it.
On the general theme of East and Central Africa, whatever we may disagree about, I think we can probably all agree with the words of my right hon. Friend's peroration when he said that East and Central Africa present us in Britain today with possibly the greatest challenge that has confronted our Colonial and Commonwealth policies at any time in our Imperial history. We are concerned with the question as to whether in this decade—or probably in the next five years—we can transfer power in these territories without bloodshed. It is a great challenge to our statesmanship, and it is a tremendous opportunity for my right hon. Friend; but at the same time a quite inescapable duty is laid upon us because it is the impact of our civilisation upon these people in East and Central Africa which has destroyed their original way of life and left them rather adrift in a sort of spiritual vacuum which we must try to help them to fill.
Our objective is, I think, perfectly clear and would, I am sure, be agreed by everyone in this House. It is to achieve in these territories a genuine multi-racial, or non-racial—call it what you will—partnership. That is not at all impossible. It has already been done in the West Indies. At the same time it is not at all easy. We have not very much time. It is the timing which makes it so terribly difficult. That is the main factor which causes differences of opinion between us in this House.
Some of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), think the Government are going too fast. There are some hon. and right hon. Members opposite who no doubt think


that we are not going quite fast enough. I should say that on balance my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is getting the timing just about right. It is not only the timing in East and Central Africa that is the difficulty. There is the other difficulty, to which the Secretary of State referred in his speech. That is the question of colour and race. It is a tremendously important world problem. It is not an easy one even in the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is constantly reminding us, and it is certainly not easy in Africa.
It is not so much an African problem as a European problem, because the section of society which gives rise to it is the European minority living there, having their homes there—indeed their only homes—there. That is what causes the difficulty. These people came perhaps with Rhodes's Column from the Cape and got a grant of land which they have farmed and which their children or grandchildren are farming today. They are not English, they are Rhodesians; or they may be pre-war farmers in the White Highlands of Kenya or post-war artisans on the Copper Belt in Northern Rhodesia. Some of these men do not want partnership with the African. They do not want African advancement. I can understand their point of view, and they cannot easily be forced to co-operate in the policies and principles of partnership in which we in this House believe.
Yet, I would say to them that partnership is their only possible hope. They have no other future in the Continent of Africa. To achieve it they have to make a painful and a conscious sacrifice of political power. They do not want to do that, perhaps partly through selfishness, but mainly because of fear of what an African Government might do to them, to their children, and to their security in their own homes. This place is their home just as much as it is the home of the Africans. It is a very natural fear of what an African Government might do. After all, they have to live with this fear, whereas we live 5,000 or 6,000 miles away.
They are afraid, no doubt, for the security of their land titles. They are afraid, no doubt, of discriminatory taxation against them under an African Government. It is all very understand-

able, but it is not very long-sighted. The day has passed when they can rule any longer by force. The only alternative to ruling by force is to co-operate in partnership together. My right hon. Friend, I believe, realised this as soon as he took office as Colonial Secretary. He pushed through the Lancaster House Constitution for Kenya, which has been a much maligned constitution. It has produced a multi-racial Government and a multi-racial Opposition in a multi-racial Parliament. That is not a bad result to have achieved in Kenya. The same result, incidentally, as we are trying to achieve with the new constitution for Northern Rhodesia.
I believe Kenya will come right. If the security of tenure for European and African holders of land is publicly recognised by the African political leaders, Kenya will go ahead. Most of the European farmers will stay in Kenya, whether because they want to or have to. Perhaps luckily for them, as a result of the land settlement schemes there are now many Africans who are in precisely the same position as the Europeans. They are holding land and have the same interest in their security of title as the Europeans have.
There is one hurdle, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), which has still to be tackled. That is the release of Jomo Kenyatta. It is a hurdle which is distasteful to many of us, but I believe it is necessary for a very practical reason: I do not think that any African politician can play a constructive part in the public life of Kenya until this particular issue has been resolved. Of course, his release would be a calculated risk, but it is one which I believe we must take. If we do not take it an African Government will take it after we have left. That, I think, might be more dangerous. If we are to take it we might just as well take it now as take it later. We might just as well help the present Kenya Government, which we would do if we did it soon; whereas we might not help very much if we left it much longer. We might just as well do it while there is a British Governor and while there are British troops there, so that if we make a mistake and we are proved wrong we can put it right without too much trouble.
The best political hope for Kenya at the present time, and particularly for the Europeans in Kenya, I take to be—and I am sure we are all agreed about this—the possibility of the creation of an East African Federation which would include Kenya. Consider the position: we see Tanganyika which used to be the most backward constitutionally of almost all the Colonies in the whole of Africa now the most constitutionally advanced, largely due, as the hon. Lady said, to the moderation and good sense of one very remarkable man—Julius Nyerere. Agitators tend to claim that it is only through agitation that advance can be achieved. Tanganyika disproves that argument, and so does Nigeria. I believe that the Colonial Secretary made the point in his speech.
In these two countries, looking back on their recent history, restraint and tolerance and a willingness to compromise have achieved a speedier political advance and more rapid progress than violence and intolerance have achieved elsewhere. In her notable speech, the hon. Lady said that Tanganyika still has very urgent problems. It is desperately poor, and badly needs capital investment, and it is far behind West Africa in educational standards; but, at the same time, I believe that there is a spirit of optimism about the future. I have not been there, and I do not know, but all that I am told leads in;, to think that the Prime Minister, Julius Nyerere, has such character and ability—and any of us who have met him can see at once that he is a quite outstanding man—that the Europeans in Tanganyika are not at all afraid of an African Government led by him. Nor would I be; nor need the white people in Kenya be, if they are to form part of a federation led by Nyerere.
I now want to turn to another Federation—the Central African Federation. Southern Rhodesia, which we discussed here last month, has its referendum tomorrow. I hope that it will be won by the United Federal Party, not that I care very much for that party, but it is a lesser evil than the Dominion Party. What a strange alliance it is in the "No" lobby—between the Dominion Party and the National Democratic Party. It is rather like the Common Market line-up in this House, with some of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the extreme right

of my party lining up with some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. This is the sort of situation we are witnessing in Southern Rhodesia.
I should like, more seriously, to say to those who rule in Southern Rhodesia that I do not believe that they will get very much more overseas capital investment in their Colony, which, as in every other part of the world, they want very much, until the world believes that they mean what they say when they talk about multi-racial partnership. I do not believe that the world does believe that at the present time; and I should add that if government does not rest up on the consent of the governed, it must rest upon coercion, and that is not a very happy atmosphere for anyone. It has not been a very happy basis, as we have seen in Algeria for many years, in Angola for many months and even in Salisbury in the last day or two. It is not a very happy atmosphere either for the rulers or the ruled.
In regard to Northern Rhodesia, which in many respects is the hub of the Federation, I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say about the article in the Guardian. Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I read it with a good deal of anxiety. We realise how very complicated the new Constitution inevitably is, but I hope I am right, following on the exchanges earlier in the debate, in thinking that in this Constitution, which the Guardian has described as containing a major error, there is no question, as was suggested there, that Africans may have to obtain up to 25 per cent. of European votes, Whereas Europeans have only to obtain as little as 2 per cent. of the African votes.
I think this is broadly the point that was made, and I hope and think it is quite wrong. I agree myself with the calculations which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and with which he dealt in some detail in his admirable speech. I have always believed—I have tried to work this out myself—that this Constitution is really more favourable to the Africans than they have yet realised, and not quite so favourable to the Europeans as Sir Roy Welensky seems to think.
I hope it will produce, like Kenya, though I quite appreciate in a different


way, the same broad results of a multiracial Government in a multi-racial Parliament, and I believe that that is the right sort of interim solution for Northern Rhodesia at the present time. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has said nothing very definite about the length of time this Constitution is to last. I do not think that this sort of constitution is, in the very nature of things, liable to last more than two or three years, until about the end of this Parliament, maybe, but I do not think much longer.
Finally, may I say this: the Central African Federation was imposed from the top—from the United Kingdom. It makes economic sense, but it is in danger of making political nonsense, and in a conflict between politics and economics, politics are apt to win. I believe, though I hope I am wrong, that the Central African Federation may fail: but the East African Federation, as yet only an idea, has in some ways a much better chance of succeeding than the Central African Federation, because it is growing up from the people instead of being imposed upon them. If the Europeans in Central Africa cannot come to terms with African aspirations, they will not retain African good will. In that event, it might be wise for us, as I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said, to consider the future possibility—I put it no higher than that—of the extension of an East African Federation to cover the Central African area as well.
These are distant prospects. Perhaps they will never arise, but if the Europeans in the Rhodesias do not want them to arise, the sooner they learn to live with the Africans the more likely they are to cement their own Federation along promising and constructive lines. At any rate, our path is clear. In the territories for which we are responsible, we are engaged in the transference of power to the majority. I believe that that is the right path, and I am sure it is the only path which the leaders of a multi-racial Commonwealth can possibly follow.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I want to say at the outset that I agree almost entirely with the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member

for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). I particularly agree with what I think was his main thesis, namely, that there is a future for the white man both in East and Central Africa, but only on condition that he gives up his present degree of political, economic and social privilege.
I hope not to detain the House for very long, but I want to draw attention to three matters which so far have hardly been touched on in the debate. In accordance with the tradition of the House of Commons, I want to declare a personal interest. For several years now I have been professionally employed as legal adviser to His Highness the Kabaka of Buganda. I have been similarly employed since 1956 by the Constitutional Committee of the Toro Rukurato, that is, the Toro Parliament of Uganda. During the past year I have advised Mr. Jomo Kenyatta in relation to certain legal proceedings in which he is currently engaged. I have to declare those interests in accordance with the convention which obtains—and rightly obtains—in the House of Commons, but I want to make it quite clear that the views that I shall express are entirely my own and I have not had any prior consultation about them with any of the persons I have mentioned.
I should like to say a few words about the situation in Uganda. My hon. Friend the Member far Flint, East (Mrs. White) and I have been to Uganda on many occasions. I want to say something about the position of the Kabaka. It seems to have been assumed by various hon. Members who spoke about Uganda that the Kabaka is exercising a sort of feudal despotism and is not acting on the advice of his Ministers. I have been in fairly close touch with Buganda and what has gone on at Mengo during recent years. I can assure the House from my own knowledge that that is not in any way a true picture. It is a complete mistake to suppose that the Ministers in the Kabaka's Government, and indeed the members of the Lukiko, have no minds of their own and are merely subject to royal direction.
The Munster Report is a very readable and interesting document. My chief regret is that we did not have it much earlier. The recent history of Uganda might have been different if we had had the Munster Report a year or two ago, at any rate before the last elections. As we approach


independence in Uganda we are confronted with the same difficulty that we have experienced almost everywhere else in Africa where independence has been brought about. The difficulty is that the Uganda Protectorate, like most other Colonies and Protectorates, is an entirely artifical unit. It merely comprises that area of territory which happened to be occupied by the British towards the end of the last century. It follows that the loyalty of the people is far more to their local and traditional institutions than it is to Uganda as a whole.
This is especially true of the four kingdoms of Buganda, Toro, Ankole and Bunyoro. The cardinal mistake which was made by British administrators in the past was to underestimate the intense loyalty to their traditional rulers and institutions which is to be found among the people of all four kingdoms, though it is something that we in this country ought to be able readily to understand. I have held the view for a long time, not merely recently, that Uganda can go forward only under some system of federation. The proposals in the Munster Report do not go quite as far as I could wish, but in the case of Buganda the Commission in terms recommends a federal relationship between Buganda and Uganda as a whole. The Commission recommends particularly that the power of veto which the Governor now has—in future it will be the Central Government—over laws passed by the Lukiko and approved by the Kabaka should pass away.
But there is an inherent contradiction in the Report. On page 137 the Commission deals with financial administration. Paragraph 412 says:
… the central government should have sanctions at its disposal—the most potent sanction being the power to reduce grants, a power which the central government should not hesitate to use when justified.
Paragraph 413 says:
It is unlikely that the local taxes which will be at Buganda's disposal will be sufficient to carry out the services in Buganda and grants should be paid on the same lines as those proposed for District Councils. Special grants would be paid for services done by Buganda but not by the district councils. Payment of grants would be contingent upon the grant-aided service being carried out in accordance with the general policy of the central government and subject to the same inspection by the departments.

That recommendation is entirely inconsistent with a federal relationship. There cannot be a federal relationship if, through financial weapons, the central Government can exercise control whenever, and to what extent, they please. We all hope for the success of the Constitutional Conference in September, but if it is to succeed that recommendation will need to be reconsidered. One should say this of all four kingdoms—not only Buganda but the other three as well. It is not enough merely to retain the trappings of kingship. It is necessary to preserve them as genuine units of government.
I pass now from Uganda to Kenya. There is only one matter to which I desire to refer concerning Kenya. A few days ago the Kenya Legislature passed a resolution asking Her Majesty's Government to alter the Constitution so as to remove the present disqualification from serving in the Legislature which is imposed on those who have served a term of imprisonment of more than two years. That is a very singular provision indeed. I will tell the Committee the actual terms of it, which are contained in the 1960 Order in Council. The relevant words are as follows:
No person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a Constituency Member, a National member or a Nominated Member who …
has served a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) exceeding two years imposed on him by a court in any part of Her Majesty's dominions or substituted by competent authority for some other sentence so imposed on him.
I raised this matter at Question Time last week with the Colonial Secretary. I suggested then that it was entirely contrary to our British Parliamentary tradition and indeed to all notions of the rule of law and justice that a man who has served his sentence—it might be many years ago—should be permanently debarred from taking his place in Parliament or indeed be subjected to any other permanent civil disability. There was great force in the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He said:
… how many Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth would be excluded from their Legislatures if this legislation were generally applied?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1961: Vol. 644, c. 1443.]


It is a very remarkable provision, because it is absolute in its terms. Suppose it were shown, as it may be shown, that the conviction was wrong. Suppose there were some colonial equivalent of the Oscar Slater case or the Adolf Beck case where after investigation years afterwards it was shown that the conviction was not justified and there was a Queen's Pardon. Under the provisions of this Order in Council as it stands there would be no remedy, because it is absolute in its terms.
The position now is that members of the Legislative Council in Nairobi, members of all races, have joined together to ask that this disqualification should be removed. Why should there be any hesitation at all in accepting that recommendation? Why should it be necessary apparently to have lengthy discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and the Governor? I put this question to the Under-Secretary of State: when may we expect a decision on this matter? May we expect it before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Leaving the subject of Kenya, I shall not follow what has been said about Central Africa, except to say that it seems to me that in Africa today we are in danger of making the worst of all possible worlds, and that is due to the ambivalence of the Government's policy. It is true that we have many things in which we can take pride. It is true that since the end of the last war we have brought into existence five new nation States on the continent of Africa, and there will be more within a very short time. Even so, it could easily happen that we are left with no friends at all, that there will be a feeling among all races in East and Central Africa that they have been betrayed by the British Government.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said that we had left behind us in West Africa a legacy of admiration and good will. I think that is largely true, but it is a legacy which can easily be dissipated, and it seems to me that the error into which Her Majesty's Government constantly fall is that they under-rate the awareness of the African people of what is going on in their own continent.
I happen to have been going regularly to East, West and Central Africa over the last thirteen years, and what has impressed me more than anything else has been the impact of events in one part of Africa upon all African peoples, even though they may be many thousands of miles away. I would remind the House of one very familiar example. It was in 1951 that the party opposite imposed federation upon the peoples of Central Africa, and imposed it without any question against their will. That led directly to the emergency in Uganda in 1953, which culminated in the exile of the Kabaka, because the peoples of East Africa believed that the same thing was about to happen to them. I believe it to be true that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to events in the Rhodesias, Angola and South-West Africa affects our position throughout the whole of Africa.
That brings me to the question of South-West Africa and the United Nations Committee. The visas of the members of this Committee were withdrawn because they were not prepared to give an undertaking that they would not cross the frontier into the mandated territory. We first learned of it when we read of an interview with Mr. Loeuw in Pretoria, which was reported in the Observer of 2nd July. We learned then that the South African Government had been given an assurance on this matter in London, that although visas would be granted the Committee would not be allowed to proceed beyond a certain Point. The reply that was given by the British Government was:
The visas were issued to the Committee on condition that no attempts were made to cross the Border into South-West Africa.
This matter was raised in the House on 10th July, 1961, and the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said:
We were advised by our High Commissioner in Ghana on 4th July that the Committee had published a Press statement
'reaffirming its determination to go to South-West Africa with or without the co-operation of the South African Government'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 36.]
It is perfectly true that the Committee intended to cross the frontier into South-West Africa. Of course it did, because that was part of its terms of reference.


It was invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations
to go to South-West Africa immediately to investigate the situation prevailing in the territory and to ascertain and make proposals to the General Assembly …
If the Committee had crossed the frontier into South-West Africa, the responsibility for turning them back at the frontier would have rested entirely with the South African Government.
Why should we do the work of the South African Government for them? If the South African Government choose, as they have done for years, to set the United Nations at defiance and to keep the United Nations Committee out of the Territory which is held under mandate, let the South African Government bear the full odium for that decision. There is no conceivable reason why Her Majesty's Government should choose to share it with them.
The last quotation that I want to make is from a letter dated 17th July addressed to the Prime Minister from Chief Hosea Kutako, the Paramount Chief of the Herero people in South-West Africa. I want to quote a passage from this letter which was written a few days ago It states:
The suspension by the British Government of visas for the United Nations Committee on South West Africa to enter Bechuanaland came as a great shock to many Africans in the territory and on the whole Continent. While the United Nations Committee on South-West Africa attempts to enter the territory to find out what is meted out to the Africans in this international territory, Britain was the first major power that has come out to jeopardise the mission of this Committee.
That is a view which will be echoed in many parts of Africa. Of course, one can put forward reasons for the decision. As in the case of Angola, the Government always have an array of technical or diplomatic reasons for what they do. In future they should concern themselves rather less with their diplomatic relations with Portugal and South Africa and a good deal more with Britain's reputation in all parts of the African Continent.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: The subject that we are debating today is so appallingly wide, as the speeches that we have already heard have demon-stated, that one is tempted to make a tour d'horizon and to jump from Bechuanaland to the northern end of

Kenya. I shall try to resist that temptation. On the other hand, as others have ranged rather wide over Africa, I feel that I can give myself a little indulgence as well.
I want to begin by congratulating sincerely Her Majesty's Government on their policy over the last two years. There has been a great deal of controversy on both sides of the House about the right policy in Africa. That is hardly surprising, for Africa is a peculiarly difficult place in which to see one's way ahead at present; but at least one can say now that, though the future in Africa is neither particularly rosy nor secure, the conditions today are a good deal better than the future as we saw it a year or eighteen months ago, and much better than we expected two or three years ago. We have got over a large number of hurdles. There is hope in a number of countries that we shall achieve real stability, and there is also hope that in the countries which look depressing now such as Kenya a way out may be found.
I thank Her Majesty's Government for letting me maintain my optimism about the future of Africa. I have always been reasonably optimistic that the Africans would work out a future which would be fairly satisfactory, for, above all, the vast majority of the people in Africa are decent and straightforward.
The one quality which has led the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State, to achieve some success is the fact that he has been a realist. He has not considered what things ought to be or might be, neither has he always considered exactly what was right or wrong, but he has always looked at the facts and has tried to follow them.
Just because the winds of change in African nationalism have come quickly he has never failed, as I frankly believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has, to recognise facts just because they have changed so remarkably quickly. He has accepted from the start that although Africans may not always know the significance of one man, one vote, they know very clearly that they want to be ruled by men of their own race.
I think that realism in facing facts is a particularly important aspect. It is not always important whether what we


believe is right or wrong, true or untrue. What matters most is whether that belief is shared by thousands of people. It is no good writing off African nationalism and other doctrines as the extremist babblings of agitators. Even if they are the extremist babblings of agitators, thousands of people believe the agitators and hold the views that the agitators have told them as true. Even if it was started by agitators or Communists, the people of Africa in very large part, in my own experience, want to govern themselves. That is a great basic fact.
That is the kind of realism that comes in when we deal with Kenyatta. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that Kenyatta was completely innocent of all connection with Mau Mau. I have many old friends who do most dastardly things and they surprise me greatly when they do them. I think that the friendship of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough for Kenyatta was much the same as my friendship with those who have done dastardly things. He never expected Kenyatta to do them. Whether Kenyatta is guilty or not, is not, in many ways, a relevant factor because thousands of people in Kenya believe that he is not guilty, believe that he is their chosen leader. The fact is that all over Kenya, Europeans, Asians and Africans want Kenyatta to be released. It is facing real facts like that, and not just the guilt or innocence of Kenyatta, that really counts.
Again, in the Federation one can talk a great deal about whether the Federation is good or bad. We can argue until the cows come home whether it will make people richer or not. Sir Roy Welensky should be more realistic and realise that he cannot make the Federation go unless he can persuade the people of Africa, with or without the facts, that federation is a good thing. Unless he can do that, he will never make federation work. On the other hand, if he can get the people behind him, and I think he is well-endowed to do so if he sets his mind to it, he can make a go of federation.
I am beginning to think that Her Majesty's Government are being a little slow in facing one fact. The whole nature of Africa is changing. There are now more self-governing independent nations in Africa than there are

Colonial Territories. Two or three years ago, or certainly five years ago, Pan-Africanism was regarded as rather a nasty word, which seemed to convey in people's minds that all the worst extremist agitators gathered together in various centres for conferences. Only three years ago the Pan-African Association for East and Central Africa was formed and I remember a security report reaching me in Tanganyika, labelled "Top Secret", on what was going on there. It was considered to be a nasty affair.
But things have changed and it is absolutely vital, in my opinion, that we should realise that it is in our interests now, in the interests of the whole of Africa, and possibly the whole of the free world, that every encouragement should be given to the newly free African States to join together in some form of union. I should like to see this country giving support to the Monrovia Conference and the Casablanca Conference. Let us try to find a union between the two, and equally between the newly self-governing countries of Central Africa. We must give a lead and every possible assistance, forgetting that Pan-Africanism was a nasty word.
It is no good looking at the bits of the map which are red and forgetting the bits that we do not want to remember. There are two extremely dangerous pieces of country placed strategically on either side of Africa—Angola and Portuguese East Africa. They are like two bombs. One has gone off and, luckily, our territories are well away from it and the explosion has not caused us a great deal of damage. Another bomb equally likely to go off, in my opinion and my experience, is in Portuguese East Africa. It has a border with Nyasaland, Southern Rhodesia, Swaziland, South Africa and Tanganyika.
I lived on the border between Tanganyika and Portuguese East Africa for several years. If the Portuguese in East Africa continue to govern in the way they have until now—with admirable principles, but absolutely appalling practice, complete negligence and neglect being the main trouble—the bomb in East Africa will go off like the bomb in West Africa. Tremendous damage can be done to the goodwill which we are building up between Europeans and Africans in Central Africa and East


Africa. Undoubtedly, we should have the same scenes in Portuguese East Africa as have been happening in Angola.
Portuguese East Africa could provide the key to make possible the various ideas we have about unifying East and Central Africa. Frankly, as one sees them on the map today, particularly on a small-scale map, it is easy to imagine that a Central African Federation and East Africa could be joined in one wonderful commonwealth. Anyone going up the Great North Road, or anyone who has tried to go from Tanganyika to Nyasaland, will realise that there is a great deal of nonsense in that. There are mountains and plains and very few communications. There is, in fact, very little scope for trade.
However, the whole situation could be changed if the northern end of Portuguese East Africa came into a union of some sort with the other East and Central African countries. Portuguese East Africa could unite East and Central Africa. From Masasi, the railhead of the groundnuts railway in Tanganyika, a road could be built of only 350 or 400 miles up the Lujenda Valley to Blantyre, through Portuguese East Africa.
One must not forget that this is a vital part and a dangerous part of Africa. We must try every possible means to get a little sense out of the Portuguese and induce them to change their methods, bringing Portuguese East Africa into the modern Africa which we are beginning to know elsewhere. The same applies, of course, to Angola.
I come now to my real object in speaking today. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has referred to current development plans in Tanganyika. I feel very strongly about this. I lived in Tanganyika for eight years and, in fact, I believe that my name still appears on the common voters roll there. I was very pleased at the cordial discussions which continued over the last eighteen months, culminating in the very happy discussions here in London in June on the future of Tanganyika. I was happy to hear the arrangements about Independence Day and all the other provisions. I particularly welcomed—it was something I worked hard for myself—the terms of compensation for Her Majesty's over-

seas civil servants which were granted on independence. The whole thing was really going like a bomb.
In Dar es Salaam, in March, the Secretary of State said quite clearly that Her Majesty's Government would not be ungenerous. Now, just because Tanganyika happened to choose a bad month to come to the United Kingdom, she has not had the money she looked for. This is really a most appalling thing. It is not just the money itself. Quite frankly, it is the taste of bad faith which depresses me most.
I have here a copy of the development plan. When the planners talk of a water scheme in Upper Malagarasi I have some idea of what that means. I have read the plan with interest. It is a down-to-earth plan. One does not find references to Governors' palaces, Presidents' palaces, State guards or flamboyant courthouses in it. It is dirt roads and dams, not even highways and aqueducts, that we are asking for in Tanganyika. It is the agricultural research that is needed. This is the kind of thing which can make Tanganyika, in three or four years, a good deal more prosperous than it is now.
The development plan is not particularly extravagant. The money Tanganyika is looking for is £24 million over three years. It is not out of place, I think, to remind the House in outline of the way that this sum is to be made up. Included in the balance are the balances from C.D. & W. schemes which were under grant from this country. Tanganyika hopes to go on receiving £3½ million to complete those. There is another £1 million of C.D. & W. grant which again forms part of the development plan. From other sources is to come £3 million.
Those are largely local sources, with possibly, certain grants from foundations in this country and America. It is hoped that miscellaneous of £l million revenue would come from various other sources and the development plan itself. Internal short-term borrowing would account for £3 million. Internal long-term borrowing would account for £3 million. External long-term borrowing would account for £11£ million.
In other words, Tanganyika is looking only for loans of up to £11½ million. This fact was quite clearly known—the


plan was already in full draft—when the agreements were made in March. I do not want to throw the Colonial Secretary's words back at him, but the words he used are remembered. I think that he probably feels worse about the refusal of Tanganyika now than anyone else does. My right hon. Friend said that we would not be ungenerous. That statement was obviously made in terms of the £11½ million which Tanganyika is looking for.
I could continue on this subject for a very long time. It has been dealt with fairly thoroughly already. The development plan, as I say, is a down-to-earth plan, not a particularly extravagant one. In my opinion, it is important that Tanganyika should have the necessary resources in the first years after independence. Time and time again, throughout the world, it has been seen that a newly independent country has a few years of careless rapture in which things can be done which can be done at no other time in its history.
Turning even to my own country, I recall that the South of Ireland had bursts of energy for five years after achieving independence. In Ghana, President Nkrumah managed to deal with all the diseases of cocoa in the years immediately after independence. The people of Nigeria are going through much the same sort of period just now. One can see it in almost every country: indepedence brings an urge and a drive forward. This is why Tanganyika needs the money so greatly now, not phased to 1966 and later.
Tanganyika is not asking for charity. Lest any hon. Member may not be familiar with the subject, I should say that Tanganyika has for years particularly since the war, supplied this country with hard currency. Tanganyika has continually had a surplus of dollars and other hard currencies over sterling, and those dollars and other currencies, frequently at the cost of considerable hardship, have come to the United Kingdom and helped our sterling balances.
The contribution from Tanganyika sisal and coffee was a considerable factor in helping us during the really bad years of the dollar gap. When I first went to Tanganyika, in 1951, it was almost impossible to buy the heavy

American vehicles people needed to travel the Tanganyika roads. Tanganyika had voluntarily given up her dollars so that we in this country could have enough meat in the "fridge".
The countries of East Africa are not paupers. They have contributed a great deal to this country for a long time. I have here the figure of balances held by the East African Currency Board. The Board has £33 million deposited in this country. If one searched the records of the pension funds of East Africa, the funds which East Africa has deposited in this country—a very large part from Tanganyika—are seen to amount to at least £50 million. Yet now Tanganyika is asking us for £5 million or £6 million, and she cannot have it.
We might lose our friendship as a result of this business. I hope that we shall not, because our friendship is strong enough, but, if we did lose the friendship of East Africa over this affair, those sterling balances might be withdrawn and the local currencies would be backed by Deutschmarks or dollars. We should lose a very great deal if we lost the friendship of East Africa at this time.

Mr. Wall: It is not just a question of a relatively small amount of money but of taking the initiative to form a consortium with the Germans and the Americans to produce even more money for this plan. It is a matter of leadership as well as cash.

Mr. Clark: That is absolutely right. We must show the lead. As a matter of international good manners, apart from anything else, how can America and Germany pour large amounts of money into Tanganyika before this country has a chance? We must give the lead. If we really cannot put up all the money we should like at this time, at least we should invite and encourage others to help. Instead of Mr. Nyerere having to go cap in hand to New York and West Germany, he should go, I feel, with the fullest possible British support.
There is another aspect to this business. Some Tanganyika Africans can appreciate the balance of payments difficulties of this country, but by no means all of them can. There have, however, been times when Tanganyika has seen a great deal of British money spent. It


took £150 million to capture Tanganyika from Germany between 1914 and 1917. That was £150 million at the 1914 value. One can juggle with the figures and soon show that such a sum would amount to about £1,000 million now. Many of the people of Tanganyika were alive and kicking at the time and saw that expenditure by the European Powers in their country years ago.
After that time, they hardly saw a penny of our money until after the Second World War, and then, unfortunately-I shall not make a party point of it now, although I am prepared to do so on occasions—there was the groundnuts scheme. This was a tragedy. The net figure was £35 million, but if all the other things are added the total expense must have been nearly £60 million. That money was literally poured into the bush. Tanganyika, possibly, had £5 million of value out of it—no more.
Those were the two occasions when the people of Tanganyika saw our money in bulk. Today, having poured £150 million down the drain in 1916 and £30 million or £40 million down the drain in 1948 to 1950, we cannot afford £5 million of our 1961 devalued pounds. It is a little hard. One can hardly blame some Africans, who may think "Perfidious Albion", and not really believe the story about our balance of payments but, rather, believe that it is just bad faith when we do not help. I am sure that it is not a question of bad faith, but that it is simply the Chancellor of the Exchequer digging in his heels with a good deal of ignorance and stubbornness. It is ridiculous that just because Tanganyika is looking for money in this month of July, 1961, instead of January, 1961, or, possibly, even July, 1962, she cannot get the money.
To me, the economy being made over Tanganyika is one of those typical little economies that an ordinary family makes when, suddenly, it meets a financial crisis and it is decided to cut down the grocer's bill and to give the children only one plate of cornflakes for their breakfast. That kind of economy does nobody any good. It certainly does not overcome a family's financial crisis. It strikes me that that is the kind of economy we are using now. We are cutting off the children's cornflakes just to

demonstrate that we are facing up to our problems. To this country, £5 million is chicken feed.
Many people have said that a Colombo plan for Africa is wanted. We now have a Secretary for Technical Co-operation, but over recent years we have failed to give a lead and there is a tremendous amount to be done in Africa. We need the co-operation of the other Western Powers, as well as of the other countries of Africa, to work out a system of pan-Africanism.
A great deal of aid for Africa can come from Africa itself. On a visit to Ghana last year, I picked up a pamphlet an oil palms. I sent it to an area in Tanganyika where oil palms are grown and I believe that, as a result, there may be a great deal of difference to the crop in two or three years' time. There is "know-how" in one part of Africa which another part of that continent does not have.
If we got all the people working together, we could build a great, free Continent of Africa which would banish poverty and every other evil. This country should give a lead. We have failed to give it. It is just the cheeseparing kind of refusal of this loan to Tanganyika that prevents us from taking the lead. We are in a unique position. Great Britain, above all others, could lead the nations of Africa and of Europe in building up Africa into a really great Continent.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) that during the debate we have hopped, skipped and jumped all over Africa. Some hon. Members have dealt with the east, some with the centre and others with the west. The debate started off with the premise that Africa belongs, not to the Africans, but to somebody else, and that it is the others who can dictate to the African what he should do.
In the few minutes at my disposal, I propose to deal with only one of the territories which have been considered today. I refer to Tanganyika. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has been to that country and speaks of it from knowledge. I do not speak from personal knowledge of Tanganyika, but I


know that about forty years ago that country became a mandated territory. Throughout that time, there has been a gradual development until, today, she is becoming a self-governing nation.
On 9th December this year, Tanganyika will achieve the great status of self-government and will have a Cabinet comprising a majority of Africans. She will start a new voyage in an uncharted sea. I understand from the Press that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh is to inaugurate the celebrations in the new country. In the same way as someone who launches a ship declares, "God bless this ship and all who sail in her", I hope that when His Royal Highness goes to Tanganyika for 9th December, he will echo the feelings of the House of Commons and proclaim, "God bless this country and all who live here".
I hope that when the Duke of Edinburgh opens the celebrations, there will be with him another person who has made a great contribution to the development of that country towards self-government. I have criticised him in the past and will probably criticise him again, but I appreciate the work that he has done and the broadminded way in which he has approached and dealt with the problems throughout his period of office.
I refer to the Colonial Secretary. He has had a very difficult job in handling the situation in Tanganyika, but he has handled it in a fine way. I hope that he will attend the celebrations.
There has been another and a strong personality in these negotiations and I want the Minister to think of him. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman that he should assist Tanganyika if only because of the character of Mr. Julius Nyerere and the way in which he has handled the situation during the past two or three years. This achievement of self-government in Tanganyika reflects the patience, calm, perseverance and forbearance of both Mr. Nyerere and the Colonial Secretary. I can imagine that they crossed swords occasionally in conference, but, finally, they came to the agreement which will end on 9th December in self-government. Mr. Nyerere has piloted the ship of State through all stages right up to the period of coming self-government. There are no further heights that he can

reach. We welcome his achievement and congratulate him on what he has done.
It was in September last year that the conference took place at Dar-es-Salaam, when both parties discussed this problem. Mr. Nyerere said that Tanganyika would apply for membership of the Commonwealth. It shows that a good taste has been left in this man's mouth after we have been negotiating with him for so long. He wants to remain a friend of ours and he wants his country to remain in the Commonwealth. He said then, and I believe that it will be so, that Britain will apply to the United Nations to end the trusteeship agreement on this mandated Territory so that Tanganyika can come in as a new nation into the United Nations.
Mr. Nyerere hoped that Britain would not be ungenerous in helping Tanganyika to meet the heavy financial burdens of independence. Here is a man who asks for independence knowing that a heavy financial burden will have to be carried. He asks the man with whom he is negotiating not only for independence, but also for financial assistance. He is fully conscious of the oppressive load that will fall upon Tanganyika when she becomes an independent territory.
I ask the Secretary of State to give consideration to that plea by Mr. Nyerere and to do something to help him. He is a far-sighted man. He does not blind himself to the responsibilities of being what he will be, or is now—Prime Minister. He is a man of principle, of patience and persistence. He has achieved what he set out to do some years ago, and now he asks us to help him carry the burden.
I emphasise the character of Mr. Nyerere, and I plead that this man, who is to lead his people, should be given all the assistance that we can give him. He is not an illiterate man. Some people have the impression that all Africans are illiterate. Mr. Nyerere is the son of a chief and was a teacher in a school. He is 38 years old; youth is on his side. He will now grow up with his country as it develops its system of self-government.
Mr. Nyerere said—this indicates the broadness of his mind—that the Tanganyikan will continue to develop their racial harmony in the country. He says that there is no splitting up into races there, and


that they want racial harmony. He says that they will avoid aggravating the fears of minorities in their country. He says that they will not create the feeling anywhere that the black man means more than anyone else.
Mr. Nyerere has also appealed to his own people. He has asked them not to let the world say that they won on moral grounds of brotherhood and then discriminated against their brothers afterwards in racial feuds. This man fought an election and won 70 of the 71 seats. So it is evident that he has the full confidence of the people of Tanganyika. He is a democrat, and desires to see democracy grow in his country.
It is because of the success achieved by Mr. Nyerere and our Colonial Secretary that I ask hon. Members to look with sympathy and understanding upon the problems that will arise. It is an axiom that the rich should help the poor and that the strong should help the weak. Perhaps it is unfortunate that we have today been hearing about the poverty of this country. Even if we are poor, I ask the Colonial Secretary to help Tanganyika out of our poverty. I am sure that she will appreciate it all the more.
In 1940, we passed the Colonial Development Corporation Act, which was designed to assist the underdeveloped colonial countries. It should be noted that that was done at a time when we were passing through the most fearful conflict in our history, the Battle of Britain, and no one knew what the outcome would be. It was when we were in the doldrums that we passed this Act to help our Colonial Territories. Cannot we now, wherever we may be—whether down in the valley, or at the top—open up our hearts to help these people? They need that help and we can give it to them.
There is no doubt that we are slowly but surely coming to terms with the older Africa. This is only one of the links in the greater chain. Now we have to remove the fear and to put trust in place of fear. If we put trust in these people, then it will be reciprocal. They will have trust and confidence in us. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at the Tanganyika problem as generously as he can. If he does that,

I am confident that he will arrive at the same victorious position which he arrived at, with Mr. Nyerere, in achieving self-government for the country.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) has urged on the Government almost exactly the same points that were urged on them by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark). Indeed, the striking feature of this debate has been the very large number of speeches that have been directed at the Government to make them act much more generously in giving economic help to Tanganyika. If the debate had served no other purpose, it would fully have justified the Opposition in raising this matter that there has been such a general consensus of opinion that the Treasury must think again about this, and that we must rise in much greater measure to the kind of challenge that faces us in Tanganyika. I will return to that point a little later in more detail.
The Opposition initiated this debate because we felt that the House should have the chance to comment before the long Recess on the many complicated developments that are going on in East and Central Africa. These territories we are discussing are not simply the latest in the long list of dependent territories moving towards independence. As the Secretary of State rightly said, they constitute a special problem, and an especially difficult one, because, of course, they include the so-called plural societies. Three out of six of the territories have white African minorities.
I use the phrase "white Africans" advisedly. It is, I think, Sir Roy Welensky's phrase, and we on this side of the House fully recognise that many European families have had their homes in these territories for several generations. I must confess that we sometimes grow a little weary of continually being accused of being anti-European in facing these problems.
This charge arises, perhaps understandably, out of the fact that this party is, by instinct and tradition, the party of the underdog, and we have inevitably concentrated over the years on speaking for black Africans unable to speak for themselves. But, of course, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, in


four of the six territories that phase has passed, or is passing, and the black African majority is in an ample position to express its own views on the political issues that face it.
We on this side of the House have our friends and families in these territories in Central Africa just as much as hon. Members opposite, even though, perhaps, we do not have our farms and fortunes there to quite the same degree. But we are as concerned about the future of white Africans as of black Africans, and we believe very deeply—and this is where the misunderstanding arises—that the future welfare of the European minorities depends upon their reconciling themselves to the rise of African nationalism. It is one of the great forces of contemporary history. It may be guided and helped but, despite what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, it cannot be halted. We should have thought that it was now a matter of plain fact and not of argument that there is no security for the Europeans unless they make the necessary political concessions while there is still time.

Mr. Turton: I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) does not want to misrepresent what I said. I said that in my view economic advancement must precede political advancement or we would get economic anarchy.

Mr. Thomson: I have no wish to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, but what he is saying in effect is that he believes that political advance, the political rise of African nationalism, can be halted while one goes ahead with economic developments. I and many hon. Members opposite believe that that is no longer a reality. It is no longer something which can happen.
An increasing number of Europeans in Kenya and Northern Rhodesia and, I like to think, in Southern Rhodesia are coming to the conclusion that the only enlightened self-interest for Europeans in Africa is to learn how to live in partnership as equal citizens with Africans of other races. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) so correctly said, much depends on what is meant by the term "partnership". Lord Malvern once committed himself to the

definition of the partnership of the horse and the rider, but that is not the kind of partnership likely to survive very long in the Africa of today.
The problems of East and Central Africa are not only a challenge to the far-sightedness of the European minorities but, as the Colonial Secretary made clear, they present perhaps the ultimate test in colonial statesmanship for a British Government. Our multi-racial Commonwealth, of which we have high hopes for the future, will not mean much to the rest of the world unless we succeed in creating multi-racial communities in those few territories of our former Colonial Empire where there is a white settler population.
We raised this debate precisely because we felt that, after a wise change of policy following the last General Election, the Government had been faltering and failing in both their political and economic policies in this area. The glaring defects of the Government's policy and some of the dilemmas into which some of their own supporters have brought them have been brought out in speeches from both sides of the House.
From the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon we had a characteristically weighty and gloomy contribution of the kind which we have came to expect from him in colonial debates over recent months. We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman speaks out of a strong sense of duty in this matter. He carries a great deal of weight in what he says, because he has behind him the reputation of his famous Motion on Northern Rhodesia with its 100 or so signatures.
The right hon. Gentleman referred very generously to his former association in the Government with the present Colonial Secretary. I rather suspect that the Colonial Secretary might be quite glad if the right hon. Gentleman were still in the Government, because he has wielded a good deal more influence on major matters of Government policy since he retired to the third bench below the Gangway than he ever did when he was a member of the Government Front Bench. But we believe that his influence on Government colonial policy over recent months has been mast unfortunate and has made a sensible settlement in Northern Rhodesia and Kenya more difficult than it need have been.
Today he was still pursuing his course of trying to prevent the Colonial Secretary from facing the facts in Kenya and releasing Jomo Kenyatta. We sometimes wonder when we consider the kind of point of view which the right hon. Gentleman expressed whether some hon. Members opposite will ever learn from their own blunders. Do they not remember that they used exactly the same arguments and used to say exactly the same kind of thing about Archbishop Makarios as they now say about Jomo Kenyatta? Archbishop Makarios used to be called the leader of darkness and death, and now he is a Commonwealth President and an honoured guest at No. 10 Downing Street.
Do not hon. Members who express this kind of point of view remember that they said the same kind of thing about Dr. Banda and the Nyasaland murder plot not so many months ago? Dr. Banda is now well on his way to becoming art elder statesman of the Commonwealth—a trifle messianic from my point of view, but if that is so he is merely following in the Prime Ministerial traditions set by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill).
It is not for a simple Socialist like myself to talk political realism to some of the Bourbons on the benches opposite who have been running the Empire for centuries. But cannot we possibly agree across the Floor of the House that we ought in these problems to try to forget the past and face the possibility of peaceful progress in the future? Keeping Jomo Kenyatta in custody means the certainty of further turbulence in Kenya. It means the certainty of further economic stagnation and loss of confidence in Kenya. Releasing Jomo Kenyatta has its risks, and we recognise them, but surely all the signs are that this offers the only real hope of progress towards a more peaceful and prosperous state of affairs in that country?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the large number of crimes of violence in Kenya, which cause a great deal of concern. I think that most of the evidence is that these are not of political or Mau-Mau origin so much as crimes of violence arising from the economic depression which exists in Kenya at the moment and which is itself a product of the lack of economic confidence.

Surely the most hopeful way of meeting this problem of crimes of violence is to release Jomo Kenyatta and try to make a new start in Kenya.
There are real signs that the rival groups of African politicians are prepared to come together on this basis. There are real signs that both European and Asian politicians are prepared to support them. I plead with hon. Gentlemen opposite who share the point of view of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that here they ought to take a risk. They ought to look at the future and not at the past. They must desist from stirring up trouble over what is necessarily going to be an extremely difficult decision for the Colonial Secretary.
We sometimes feel that the kind of powerful pressure which has been brought from the back benches opposite on to the Colonial Secretary and his colleagues has so rattled the Government that even when they have a reasonable case they make the worst of it. Not even the harshest critics on this side of the House of the Government's colonial policies would accuse them of conducting their colonial policies on the same basis of principle as the colonial policies of Portugal. Nobody would dream of uttering such a slander; nobody, that is, except the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Home. At a dinner in Lisbon on 26th May he said:
Both British and Portuguese doctrines of Colonial Government are based on respect for the human personality. Both reject racialism.
That kind of sophistry does us immense harm throughout Africa, and I wish that the Government would stop appeasing our oldest ally and make a start towards encouraging some of our newer allies, such as Tanganyika. Mr. Nyerere appealed to the Government to withdraw the Portuguese consular representation in Tanganyika. I wonder whether he got as dusty an answer to that request as he got from the Colonial Secretary to his request for financial aid.
It is true that Tanganyika is not going to be one of our military allies in the sense that Portugal is, but wars of ideas are going on in the world for which we need allies as much as we need allies in the cold war between the rival military Powers. We should like to believe that


membership of our multi-racial Commonwealth is as important to world peace as membership of military alliances.
Another case where the Government did themselves an injustice was in their behaviour over the problem of the United Nations delegation to South-West Africa, which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot). The Government have a perfectly good record in terms of their own United Nations trusteeships. Tanganyika is a shining example, but they are also struggling manfully with the very difficult problem of the United Nations trusteeship which they are carrying in the Cameroons.
In the light of this fact I do not understand why the Government put themselves in the position, before the world, of appearing to place the legal position of South Africa in South-West Africa—I might almost say the illegal position of South Africa in South-West Africa—before the law of the United Nations. I do not know what the technical position is under international law, but the effect upon world public opinion has been most unfortunate.
Indeed, the Government's whole policy towards the Union since it became a Republic has been far too timid. I am glad to see the Minister for Commonwealth Relations is here. I recommend him to read a recent article in the Daily Telegraph, which may carry more weight with him than some other sources that I could quote. The article was from the newspaper's Commonwealth correspondent, Mr. R. H. C. Steed. Writing of his tour of South-West Africa he said:
Nearly all the English-speaking South Africans I met, men of substance and responsibility, in all walks of life, have decided that only a profound shock to the mass of rank and file Afrikaner supporters of Dr. Verwoerd can bring about a peaceful change of regime.
They now look to the threat of sanctions over South-West Africa, or if need be to actual sanctions, to provide this shock. A small but increasing number of Afrikaner intellectuals and professional men support this view. It is the earnest hope also of the Asians and Coloureds, and of the moderate Africans.
None of us has pressed the matter as far as that yet, but it is an indication that the Government have been far too pussyfoot in their treatment of South

Africa. I hope that they will act in the future a good deal more courageously over the issue of South-West Africa than they have done in the last week or two.
During the debate there has been some discussion or developments in Southern Rhodesia. These are bound to cause a great deal of anxiety and concern in all quarters of the House. Tomorrow the referendum is taking place in Southern Rhodesia, in a state of what is virtually martial law. I am told that the African township of Highfield is tonight an armed camp. The National Democratic Party's own more informal referendum took place on Sunday, fortunately without any disturbances. We can only pray that there will be no turbulence tomorrow.
This situation has arisen, in the end, because Her Majesty's Government failed to obtain consent for the kind of constitutional proposals that are being brought up in this referendum. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations very nearly obtained that consent. We wish he had done so, but he did not. The trouble is that the Government have gone on as if that consent had been obtained. Now we have the spectacle of these constitutional changes in Southern Rhodesia being imposed by force, undoubtedly against the wishes of the articulate Africans in that territory.
I do not think that anybody who reads reports of the way in which the campaign is being conducted can feel anything but great anxiety about future developments there. I want to deal with one report which has been recurrent in responsible newspapers like The Times and the Guardian. It is to the effect that there has been a communication from the United Federal Party that, once it had won the referendum, if it did not get co-operation from the African members in the new Assembly it might reduce their numbers, or even remove them. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) approached Rhodesia House about this, and he obtained a complete denial from Sir Edgar Whitehead, which should go on the record of this debate. Sir Edgar categorically denies that his Government might legislate to eliminate the fifteen B Roll seats. He says:
This would be a complete breach of faith.


I am glad to be able to put that denial into the record.
Then one comes to the problem in Northern Rhodesia which has been fully dealt with by many hon. Members and I do not wish to traverse the same ground. I only hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) is right and that out of these complexities it is still possible to get a moderate African majority. I am sure that that is the way to peaceful progress in that territory.
The Colonial Secretary said in his defence that the reason why his proposals there were so complicated was that in that kind of multi-racial community he could not avoid complexity. He instanced both Kenya and Northern Rhodesia as two constitutions for which he has been responsible. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that despite the complexities of the Kenya Constitution it was absolutely clear, from the moment that the Lancaster House Conference ended, where the political power lay. It was quite clear that there was then the likelihood of a moderate African majority coming out of those elections. Our continual complaint about the results of the Northern Rhodesian Conference has been that that sort of clarity has not obtained.
In the end there is something to be said for some simplicity in these issues. In the end we have to be able to convince ordinary people that this is the right way forward, and if we make matters so complex that they do not understand them, then even if we are right, we do not achieve the kind of result which we are seeking. I know that the Colonial Secretary has lost a great deal of good will over his manoeuvres regarding the Northern Rhodesian Constitution during recent weeks. He has been embarrassed politically by the lack of support of a good many of his hon. Friends. I know that his policies have sometimes gained the support of many people who are not normally expected to support a Conservative Colonial Secretary. But it seems an odd way to behave, to decide that it is better to have no friends at all than to have the wrong friends. That seems to be the way in which the Colonial Secretary has been behaving recently.
Finally, one comes to the position in Tanganyika to which so many hon. Members have addressed themselves. Here

we are confronted with the consequences of the statement made earlier today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the very shortsighted and selfish folly which will flow from it unless there is a change in the attitude of the Government. What the Chancellor announced, behind a careful smokescreen of words, was, as I understood it, that there would be a freeze on overseas aid in the years immediately ahead. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to suggest that because we were doing a great deal better now than was the case a few years ago this was a reason for not trying to increase aid as our national income increased. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to allow an increase in domestic expenditure on a modest scale but there is to be a freeze in overseas expenditure.
This is completely unjustifiable. The hon. Member for Antrim, North in his admirable speech mentioned the groundnut scheme in Tanganyika. At least it may be said about that scheme that the post-war British Government, in all the tremendous austerities and difficulties of that period, were prepared to make a big effort to engage in large-scale economic development in that territory. Today we have a Government who are ruling a country more prosperous than ever before in its history. When the history of this period is recorded people will not go into the intricacies of the electoral cycle of Tory Government expenditure and the economic ups and downs as one sees them follow one another between election dates. They will look to see whether Britain, given the kind of wealth we have in our possession, acted generously and was willing to ask for adequate sacrifices from the people. I am sure that were those sacrifices requested they would be made. I hope that as a result of this debate there will be a reconsideration of the policy in Tanganyika.
Africa is in the middle of a headlong revolution. The framework in which it is now taking place is being shaped by forces largely outside the control of any Government in this country. But I believe that within that framework, with all the limitations imposed upon the possibilities, it is reasonable to look forward to a prosperous future for Africa. Were I asked to state the kind of ideal which is achievable, I would


say that it was an Africa led by moderate African politicians like Julius Nyerere and Kenneth Kaunda, working in partnership with the economic enterprise of Europeans in industry and on the land. I believe that despite all the difficulties and despite all the bitterness which has been engendered in various places in recent years in Africa such a reconciliation between the European and the African is possible.
I think of the kind of bitterness which existed over many years during India's struggle for independence. Some of us, if we had not been here tonight, would have been at India House saying goodbye to Mrs. Pandit, one of the most distinguished ambassadors who has ever graced London. In sad and foolish days gone by she was in British gaols in India, but today, with a characteristic Indian generosity of spirit, she and her great country are among Britain's best friends. In the same way, if we act wisely and generously we can enjoy the friendship of the exciting new association of nations which are growing up in Africa.
We can move towards this goal if only the Colonial Secretary will stick to his guns on these matters and if the back bench critics behind him will drop their guns. However, because in recent months there has been a great deal of evidence that all the shooting has come from the back benchers and that the Government has been giving way, we intend to divide the House this evening.

9.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): It is with considerable regret that after that admirable speech with which I found myself in a large measure of agreement, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) should have said that the Opposition proposes to divide the House. I think it a pity as we seem to be united in this House on a great many things in colonial policy. I view with regret that the Opposition should so decide.
This has been a debate which many of us would wish could have been longer and that we could have touched on some of the problems outside Central and East Africa. It is to the territories there that the main debate has been addressed, and I shall endeavour to base my

remarks mainly on them and to answer all the points which have been raised in the time which remains to me.
The first thing we should look at is the point which was raised initially by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and has run right through the debate, the problem of assistance to Tanganyika. That matter was raised most ably by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who made what I thought was a good point, that after several hundred millions have moved from colonial status to Commonwealth status, we are left with territories which often need a greater rate of investment than others. That is a good point and one which I shall certainly bear in mind, but I should point out to the House as a whole that the contributions which this Government have made in overseas aid have been remarkable. Although the number of Colonial Territories has shrunk in the last few years, these contributions have gone up from £38 million in 1958 to £80 million this year.
We have most earnestly considered the question of assistance to Mr. Nyerere. All hon. Members who have spoken have paid tribute to his statesmanship. We are determined to do what we can to help him. As my right hon. Friend said, we have been able to make some improvement in the offer which was originally made before he went to New York. I think it right that at this point I should not reveal figures because it is not the wish of Mr. Nyerere, the Prime Minister of Tanganyika, nor of my right hon. Friend that such figures should be revealed, but I can say that I think the figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East were well below those which are now being worked out with Mr. Nyerere.
It is important that my right hon. Friend has been able to recommend to Mr. Nyerere that he should go ahead with his development plan. I think this is the key to Mr. Nyerere's thinking, and to his immediate demands and needs. It is also hopeful that there should be a consortium of investment in this area, in which the United States seems to be prepared to play a part. Looking at other territories like the West Indies, we welcome enormously the new policy of President Kennedy to help us over some of


these matters where we have not ourselves sufficient funds.
The hon. Lady raised an important point, as I think did some other hon. Members, on the important question of the compensation scheme and the valuable work which has been done by expatriate civil servants from this country in Tanganyika. Again, without mentioning any figures, I can say that we have made an offer of very substantial help to Tanganyika, which will go a long way to meet their needs.
Points were raised about various other territories, and probably the quickest and simplest way of dealing with them would be for me quickly to review these various territories, picking up the points made by hon. Members in what has been a thoroughly reasonable and constructive debate. I am sure that we all join with my right hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in making an appeal to those in Zanzibar who are at the moment threatening to boycott the Legislature. I am sure that this important message should go out from this House in this form: a boycott is of no advantage either to those boycotting or to those being boycotted. If we can get the Afro-Shirazis to take their places, some of the problems, which seem enormous at this stage, could be overcome.
I should now like to turn to the points made about Uganda. I listened with very great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), who revealed such a widespread interest and knowledge of this area, and also to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East. I am sure at this stage it is safe to say that the point raised by the hon. Lady from a rather contradictory point of view, shows the sort of problem which we have to resolve, and which, I hope, will be resolved in the September conference. What I can say at this point is that the meeting between the Governor and the Kabaka's Minister, reported in The Times a few days ago, seems to have gone satisfactorily. It is a matter of satisfaction that Mr. Kiwanuka has been appointed Chief Minister, and things seem to be going reasonably well and the Government are finding their feet.
The hon. Lady also asked when the World Bank's Report would be available on the economy of Uganda. I trust that that Report will be in our hands by the middle of next month. I think that the American professor who has been dealing with it will be arriving here soon, and we can discuss the matter with him.
It is right for me now to turn to Kenya. Here, I think a proper tribute was paid to Lancaster House by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley). That is not a pun which I suddenly thought of; the words, in fact, came from my hon. Friend's lips quite involuntarily. The Lancaster House Constitution has formed a sound basis for further constitutional development. I am sure that my right hon. Friend built well in setting up this form of Constitution, and from it can proceed the necessary steps for further constitutional advance based on this sound and working Constitution.
Hon. Members on both sides raised the question of land. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahan (Mr. Turton) asked how Her Majesty's Government propose to implement the undertakings given by Lord Boyd with respect to the safeguarding of property rights. As my right hon. Friend informed the House an 20th December, Her Majesty's Government have carried out a detailed investigation of how security and title in land and property can be safeguarded, both up to and after independence. Detailed provisions were included in the Constitution drawn up last December. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend said, the continued protection of fundamental rights, including rights in property, would inevitably be an essential part of discussions on constitutional advance.
As those who have been following these matters will have noticed, that is precisely what is happening, because African leaders have agreed to include this question in the talks on constitutional advance which we trust will begin in Nairobi in the next few days. Beyond that, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, we believe that there must be co-operation and common interest between all those who are property owners in East Africa. Whether they be Asians, Europeans or Africans, they have precisely the same interest, which


is to ensure that their property rights are safeguarded. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House said this afternoon, this is where we believe that the true safety and protection of those who hold property in Kenya lies, namely in co-operation, as Kenyans, between the people of the country.
The question of land investment has been raised. My right hon. Friend said this afternoon that we hope that in the course of the fairly near future there will be a further advance in the extension of investment for African resettlement in Kenya.
I turn now to the question of Mr. Jomo Kenyatta. The question of his early release was raised on both sides of the House—led this afternoon by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who throughout has been persistent on this issue, the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), and others. It is not a question of a retrial. It is not a question of a few civil servants in Nairobi or of a political party, as some of my hon. Friends suggested. This is a question of the gravest concern to my right hon. Friend and to the Governor in Kenya. In this they will do their duty.

Mr. Callaghan: Oh.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry that the hon. Member should mock me on this serious matter. I made my remark seriously. They will do their duty on this serious matter. As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, if the opportunity arises of any change or any announcement we will make it before the House of Commons goes into recess.
One other point of importance was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. That was the question of the disqualification effected in the Constitutional Order in Council. The papers have literally just been received from Kenya. We will study them, and I will communicate with the hon. and learned Member and with the House when we have completed this study.
It is only proper for me in the few minutes left to me to turn to the question of the Northern Rhodesian Constitution. During the debate some hon. Members,

particularly the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, seem to have been strangely partisan in their espousal or support of various political parties, whether they be of the right or the left. I do not believe that this is the function of this House or of the Colonial Secretary. In matters of constitutional progress in mixed racial societies especially his rôle must be one of constitution-making. He should try to reach the maximum degree of assent, and, if that be impossible, he should act as arbiter between the contending factions.
Throughout these negotiations, which have been long, we have had three aims—first, that there should be an increase in African representation secondly, that the composition of the Legislative Council should be at or around parity between European and African and thirdly, that candidates should be encouraged to adopt a non-racial approach and should be required to appeal to the votes of both races. I believe that the present Constitution has a fair hope of carrying out all these objectives.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster was one of remarkable interest, showing, on the one hand, how difficult it can be for the European to acquire the necessary number and, on the other hand, how comparatively simple it may be for the African to acquire it, in view of the U.F.P. vote recorded at the last election. These facts are worth studying.
May I turn to one other matter. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have before us in East and Central Africa probably the greatest colonial challenge. We must not only see that the policies we pursue are aimed at the welfare of all of those territories, but also that we create, through our educational systems and through the localisation of the Civil Service, people with the necessary qualifications to take on the task.
I should like to say a few words on what we are doing to achieve this. Since March, 1960, when the Public Service Conference in London was attended by representatives of all these territories, we have been working, first, to improve the educational pyramid and, secondly, to set on foot in Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland provision for the localisation of the Civil Service. We are already seeing some progress,


especially in East Africa where in less than two years the numbers have trebled. In education we are already seeing a great advance in the number of secondary school children. These are vital matters, because these people will eventually provide the muscle and the sinew of these new States.
Before us is a great advance of which this country as a whole can be proud. I believe that no man has played a more

important, honourable or far-sighted rôle in this than the present Secretary of State, and I believe that the whole House will do well, whatever the difficulties which lie ahead, to record in him tonight a vote of full confidence.

Question put, That £3,671,010 stand part of the Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 197.

Division No. 257.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
Joseph, Sir Keith


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Eden, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Allason, James
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus


Atkins, Humphrey
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kirk, Peter


Barber, Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Leather, E. H. C.


Barter, John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leavey, J. A.


Batsford, Brian
Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Forrest, George
Lindsay, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Berkeley, Humphrey
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Freeth, Denzil
Longden, Gilbert


Bidgood, John G.
Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bishop, F. P.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bossom, Clive
Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Box, Donald
Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Goodhew, Victor
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Braine, Bernard
Gower, Raymond
McMaster, Stanley R.


Brewis, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Brooman-white, R.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Buck, Antony
Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullard, Denys
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Grimston, Sir Robert
Maginnis, John E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Sir John


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Brian (Matdon)
Marshall, Douglas


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mawby, Ray


Chataway, Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hendry, Forbes
Mills, Stratton


Cole, Norman
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Cooke, Robert
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morgan, William


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles


Cordle, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, Gerald


Corfield, F. V.
Hobson, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hollingworth, John
Noble, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Hopkins, Alan
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Crowder, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cunningham, Knox
Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Curran, Charles
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Dance, James
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Partridge, E.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Deedes, W F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, John


de Ferranti, Basil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Digby, Simon Wingfield
James, David
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, Sir James


Doughty, Charles
Jennings, J. C.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, Percival


du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch




Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Smithers, peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Prior, J. M. L,
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Spearman, Sir Alexander
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pym, Francis
Speir, Rupert
vaughan-Morgan, Rt, Hon. Sir John


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Ramsden, James
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavel (St. M'lebone)


Rees, Hugh
Stodart, J. A.
Waltder, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Walker, Peter


Renton, David
Storey, Sir Samuel
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Studholme, Sir Henry
Walt, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Rippon, Geoffrey
Talbot, John E
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, William


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)




Roots, William
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Teeling, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Russell, Ronald
Temple, John M.
Wise, A. R.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Seymour, Leslie
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sharpies, Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John


Shaw, M.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Shepherd, William
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Chichester-Clark




NOES


Ainsley, William
Forman, J. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Albu, Austen
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLeavy, Frank


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Aden, Scholefield (Crewe)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, A C.


Awbery, Stan
Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Baird, John
Gourlay, Harry
Marsh, Richard


Baiter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Mayhew, Christopher


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles
Mellish, R. J.


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Milne, Edward J.


Blyton, William
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.


Boardman, H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, Walter


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moody, A. S.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hannan, William
Moyle, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mulley, Frederick


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip (Derby, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oram, A. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hilton, A. V.
Owen, Will


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Holman, Percy
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pannett, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pargiter, G. A.


Callaghan, James
Hoy, James H.
Parker, John


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.


Chapman, Donald
Hunter, A. E.
Pavitt, Laurence


Chetwynd, George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cliffe, Michael
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, Frederick


Collick, Percy
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pentland, Norman


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, Sir Barnett
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Poppfewell, Ernest


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cullen,, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Darling, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John


Deer, George
Kelley, Richard
Redhead, E. C.


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, G. W.


Dempsey, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.


Diamond, John
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dodds, Norman
Lawson, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marous



Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Logan, David
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Evans, Albert
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Finch, Harold
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Edward


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mclnnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)







Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Small, William
Taylor, John (West Lothlan)
Williams. D. J. (Neath)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thompson, Or. Alan (Dunfermline)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tommy, Frank
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Steele, Thomas
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, R. E.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wade, Donald
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stones, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Warbey, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Stress, Dr. Batnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David



Swingler, Stephen
White, Mrs. Eirene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Sylvester, George
Whitlock, William
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Ifor Davies.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes 1 to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Estimates for Revenue Departments, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, (the Air Estimates, and of the Navy, Army, and Air Services [Expenditure].

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1961–62

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS II

COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in repect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS V

HEALTH, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, LABOUR AND AVIATION

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, &C.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

TRANSPORT, POWER, AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS X

PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1961–62

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,

put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1961–62

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,

put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1961–62

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,

put and agreed to.

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1959–60

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Navy Expenditure, 1959–60.

put and agreed to.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1959–60

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Army Expenditure, 1959–60,

put and agreed to.

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1959–60

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Air Expenditure, 1959–60,

put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [24th July]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, the sum of £3,125,425,646 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Edward Boyle.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty two, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

NEW TOWNS COMMISSION

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Commission for the New Towns (Appointed Day) Order, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 1162), dated 22nd June 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, he annulled.
The Commission for the New Towns deals, admittedly, with a transitional stage in the life of the new towns. It is important for the purpose of this debate that we get that point quite clear and I want to quote from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government when the 1959 Act on which this Order is based was having its Second Reading. He said, on 1st December, 1958:
I want to make it perfectly clear to the House that the Bill is strictly limited to the second stage,"—
that is, the second stage in the life of new towns—
that of consolidation.
Later, he said:
We believe that the question of ultimate ownership"—
that is, ultimate ownership of the assets of the new town corporations—
is one which it would be premature to try to settle at this stage."—,[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 849.]
We are dealing, then, with something for the transitional stage in the life of new towns.
We are moving the Prayer because we on this side of the House believe that the Commission should not come into being when the Government are not yet clear about what is to come after the transitional stage and when we have reason to fear that when they do reach a decision on that point it will be a wrong decision. We take that view for specific reasons based on this Bill and not merely on a natural general assumption about any decision that might be taken by the present Administration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is always very quick to follow what is in my mind. I quite follow what he means by the words based on this Bill ", but what seems to arise is whether under

the Bill, which the House has already made into an Act of Parliament, the appropriate date to start the Commission should be the 31st October, 1961.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I think that I used the phrase "this Bill", Mr. Speaker, when I was quoting from what the then Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading of the Bill which ultimately became the 1959 Act from which this Order springs. I entirely agree that we are dealing here with whether the Commission should come into being on a particular date. I am arguing that we think it should not come into being at a time when the Government have not yet made clear what is to come after the transitional stage for which the Commission is intended.

Mr. Speaker: Surely that must be wide of what we may properly discuss on this Order, which assumes apparently, that there should be this kind of Commission, which is created by the Act? This Order raises the question, as I understand it, whether, assuming that there should be such a Commission, it should be, pursuant to that Act, brought into existence at this particular date.

Mr. Stewart: May I put it like this, Mr. Speaker? If the Government were to make a statement that removed some of our anxieties about what is to be the nature of the Commission's work and what is to follow its administration, we might then decide that it would be proper for the Commission to come into being, but we are reluctant to agree to the proposition that it should come into being on 1st October because we have as yet had no reason to suppose that the Government will make their mind clear to us before that date.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member will wish to help me. I do not wish to be tiresome, but is not that from my point of view extremely difficult? Surely that is saying that no date which would be appropriate can be specified until the Government have made a statement about the future intentions beyond what has already been proposed. Surely what we are here concerned with, assuming the Act to be right and the existence of the Commission to be right, is whether the October date is or is not the right date to set up the Commission.

Mr. Stewart: May I put it like this, Mr. Speaker? I think that we should take the view that, possibly, 1st December might be a more suitable date—I do not, of course, press that particular date, but I think that this would bring it into order—because it is more reasonable to suppose that by then the Government will have removed the anxieties that we have about the Order. I think that I can develop that point.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be unduly restrictive. I know that the hon. Gentleman will help me. I do not think that we could on this Order, within our rules and principles, discuss future policy beyond the existence of the Commission. I think that we can discuss whether or not 1st October is the right date on which to bring the Commission into existence, assuming, as we must postulate for the purpose, that it is right that it should exist.

Mr. Stewart: I think that I made the point at the beginning that the Commission deals with the transitional stage in the life of the new towns. I think it reasonable for us to say that we are doubtful whether it is desirable for it to embark on that transitional stage on 1st October. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult to discuss that if one makes no reference at all to what the transition is to lead to. I appreciate that one ought not to attempt to develop that in any detail.

Mr. Speaker: I must trust the hon. Gentleman I am obliged to him.

Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To make the point clear, I want just to refer to the episodes that led up to the creation of this Commission and face us now with the proposition that it should come into being on 1st October. All this began with the New Towns Act, 1946, which brought the new towns themselves into existence and provided them with development corporations, whose work will, of course, cease on 1st October, 1961, by virtue of the coming into existence of the Commission proposed in the Order.
It is clear that when the 1946 Act was under discussion both sides of the House took the view that ultimately the ownership of the assets of the development corporations would pass into the hands of local authorities. We are now faced

with the proposal that on 1st October they shall pass into the ownership and control of the Commission for the New Towns. If we ask why—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I should hate this debate to get off on a wrong statement about fact. Nothing happens about the development corporations on 1st October. There has, under the Act, to be a new Order. That is thought to be likely to be made on 1st April next year, probably for two of the new towns. Only then will any new town development corporation cease to exist and be replaced by another body.

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was, of course, skipping a stage in that process. The Minister first makes this Order to bring the Commission into existence, and then makes subsequent Orders which transfer the assets of the development corporations to the Commission.

Sir K. Joseph: Nominated development corporations.

Mr. Stewart: Yes. I am a little startled to hear that the Government have selected 1st April for that particular operation, but no doubt they have their reasons. Why has there been this change? The view was universally held that the transition ought to be from development corporations to local authorities. Why have the Government changed their mind and now ask us to bring into being this new body, the Commission for the New Towns?
Several reasons have been given for that. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, when charged with inconsistency on this matter, argued, in effect, that inconsistency was almost a virtue in itself. That does not carry very much conviction. The Times, more candid than the right hon. Gentleman, threw more light on the matter. It said that it was a good thing to bring the Commission into being, rather than for the assets to pass to the local authorities, because a good many of the local authorities in the new towns would be controlled by the Labour Party. The Times regarded that as sufficient reason for this change. It is a good deal more convincing, if not more creditable, than anything that the Minister gave as a reason for the change of policy.
Pressed on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman argued that it was necessary to bring the Commission into being because the local authorities concerned were, as he put it, "young". I thank that he meant that they were young in comparison with the size of the responsibilities and problems that they would have to bear. We are asked, in effect, on the Minister's second argument, to bring the Commission into being on 1st October, because on that date he does not think that the local authorities will be in a position to approach taking over the responsibilities of the development corporations. Let us examine that argument.
Let me say at once that I agree that there is a transitional stage in the life of a new town. One can see three such stages. The first is the development when its population is growing, largely by immigration. That is essentially the period of the development corporation—the period which this Order is the first step to ending. Then there comes a second stage, in which the growth of population is rather by natural increase than by immigration, and that natural increase, of course, will be exceptional owing to the young age composition of the town. Then, presumably beyond that, lies a stage where, in age composition and in other matters, a new town more closely resembles an ordinary community.
In asking us to bring the Commission for the new towns into being as early as this, the Minister is taking the first step towards that final stage that lies even beyond the Commission itself. Without, as you, Mr. Speaker have warned me, going into detail on that, I think it will be legitimate to say that if we are to start on that road on 1st October we should have some idea, in general, of where it will lead us in the end.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer this question: is it the intention of the Government that, ultimately, the assets now owned by the development corporations, after passing through a period of ownership by the Commission, shall ultimately pass into the hands of the local authorities? It is reasonable that the Government should be clear about their intentions on that point. It is either that, or these assets are to be sold off to private persons.
The Commission we are asked to bring into existence on 1st October will have power to dispose of assets in that way. We know from subsections (5, a) and (4, d) of Section 2 of the 1959 Act that, subject to direction and control by the Minister, the Commission can have power to dispose of its assets in that way. If we are to assent to the Commission corning into being on 1st October, are we then taking the first step towards local authority ownership of the assets, or the first step towards the disposal of those assets, houses, shops, factories, and so on, to private persons?

Mr. Speaker: All these consequences of which the hon. Member is speaking may follow from the setting up of the Commission, but I do not understand why they follow from the setting up of the Commission on the first day of October, or the second day of October, or the third day of October, or the first day of November. The issue raised by the Order is very narrow, I am sorry to be tiresome.

Mr. Stewart: I think that you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is not as narrow as between, say, the first day of October and the second day of October. What I am suggesting is that it would be wiser if the Commission came into being a little later, when the Government themselves are a little clearer about where this is going to lead us. I do not propose to develop the question of the ultimate destination of the assets of development corporations any further.
I think that I shall be on surer ground from your point of view, Mr. Speaker, if I now ask how the Commission will handle the transition stage. Have we, by a date as soon as 1st October, arrived at the transition stage at which it is reasonable to ring the death knell of the development corporations, which is what this Order does?
To answer that question, we have to look at some of the problems which the development corporations are now handling. I think that I shall certainly be in order here, because we all agree that, sooner or later the development corporations will stop handling the problems which they are now handling, whether their powers and properties ultimately go to the local authorities or the new Towns Commission.
The question at issue is whether we should begin the process of putting them out of business at this date. To answer that question, we have to look at some of the problems which the development corporations have to handle. They have to handle the problem of the actual provision of houses, of course. Even when migration into the new towns has stopped, there is an exceptional housing problem arising from the exceptional natural increase of population.
Secondly, even when, as a result of the work of the development corporation, enough industry has been attracted into the area to start the new town, the development corporation still has the problem of an exceptional number of young people in the new town. As the years go by the number of school leavers increases. The problem of the employment of youth, of apprenticeship training, and, therefore, again, of the attraction of industry to the new towns will still be there. There is further the problem to which frequent reference has been made in the Press, the provision of sufficient social amenities in the new towns. All these are tasks on which the development corporations are engaged at the moment and will continue to be engaged until both this Order and the subsequent Orders to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred have been passed.
Why should we suppose that these problems will be particularly well handled by a Commission of the kind designated in this Order? They are all problems which require the local knowledge of each particular town, yet it is proposed that the solving of them for all the new towns should be dealt with by a single Commission all of whose members are appointed by the Minister, and none of those members are elected.
Consider the size of this undertaking. The Commission, when we have brought it into existence and completed the process of transfer, will own about 90,000 dwellings, in which dwell about 350,000 people. It will own about 250 factories and 2,000 shops. When we debated land, a few days ago, the Minister was very critical of certain proposals that we made on the ground that they would lead to an enormous bureaucracy. But

surely it is an extraordinary measure of bureaucracy that this varied range of undertakings, the proper administration of which requires so much local knowledge peculiar to each particular town, should all be handled by a single nominated Commission?
I see that while I have been saying that the Parliamentary Secretary has been busy making notes. I expect that the words he has written down are, "local committees", because it is proposed that the development commission shall appoint local committees to assist it in its work, but every one of the members of those committees will be nominated by the Commission. Not a single one will be elected by a local authority.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that that is going rather beyond the scope of this Order, which is concerned merely with the date. No doubt the hon. Member heard what Mr. Speaker said earlier.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that what I have to say now will be entirely to the point and in order.
The Government are asking us to bring this Commission into being on 1st October, 1961. Have they considered the principles on which that Commission will act in the nomination of its committees? Have they asked the local authorities for their views on the matter? Is there any possibility that, although neither Act nor Order provides for representation of the local authorities on the local committees, the Commission will appoint people suggested by the local authorities?
Before we assent to this Commission coming into existence on 1st October, we are entitled to know whether the Minister already has cleared up this point about the Commission's attitude towards the appointment to the local committees of people in fact, though not in law, recommended to it by the local authorities, or whether he will do so between now and 1st October. I think that many of my hon. Friends would regard that as a point of considerable importance.
What we have is a proposal to take, on 1st October, the first step towards


wiping out the development corporations and the transfer of the assets to the Commission. We are asked to take that first step on 1st October, before the Government have made clear to us what is their view of the ultimate destination of this property and these responsibilities and before we know anything definite or detailed about the way in which the local committees, which are supposed to be an important part of the scheme, will function. It would be wiser for the Government to fix a later date and, in the interval which would provide itself, to consider an alternative solution to the problem.
I think that the solution should be on the following lines: first, it should be clear that the ultimate destination of the assets of the corporations is into the hands of local authorities. It is important, in that connection, to notice that we are not talking about houses which will be sold to the people living in them; there will be a considerable owner-occupier population in the new towns. We are concerned with the ownership of rented houses.
One reason for our reluctance to take this course, which is to be started upon on 1st October, is that it has been suggested earlier by Government spokesmen that there is something undemocratic about a number of rented houses in a town being owned by a local authority. I cannot see why that should be regarded a undemocratic when the Government apparently regard as satisfactory that rented property should be owned and managed either by a Commission or by a local committee under its control, none of whose members are elected—or, alternatively, that the houses should be sold off to private landlords.
I doubt whether people who do not own the houses in which they live consider it more democratic to have a private landlord than to be the tenants of a local council. We are reluctant to take, on 1st October, the first step on a road on which the Government's ultimate intentions are so obscure. A better solution, to which the Government could address their minds if they would agree to bring the Commission into being rather later and give themselves more time for reflection, would be to keep the development corporations in existence for the present, recognising

that their responsibilities must ultimately go to the local authorities, and to begin a process of gradual transfer of their responsibilities.
The local authorities would undertake to deal with an increasing measure of the housing problems of the area while the corporations would continue to deal with the problems of industry and employment. The membership of the development corporations could be broadened by the inclusion thereon of certain representatives of the local authorities, and, not necessarily all at once, but possibly neighbourhood by neighbourhood, the property and assets could be transferred from the corporations to the local authorities.
The Minister wants us to take this step on 1st October, because he says that local authorities are "young, and not yet ready for the responsibilities and problems involved". What do we do with young people in order that they shall grow up and be able to bear responsibilities? We devolve duties and responsibilities on them, not all at once, but bit by bit, and that is what we believe should be the process between the corporations and local authorities.
The date of the Order-1st October, 1961—will be watched with an almost painful interest by the staffs employed by the corporations. Therefore, before we consent to take a step which implies a great deal for the employment of a considerable number of very useful public servants, we are entitled to hear from the Minister what are the present arrangements about redundancy among the staffs of the corporations.
From time to time bits of information have been available and there have been discussions through the appropriate machinery. But I hope very much that before we allow a Commission of this kind to come into being on 1st October we shall know how the matter now stands regarding giving proper notice where necessary and, one would hope, the retention of a good many members of the staff in the service of the proposed Commission.
The other question to be asked in that respect is whether the Government realise that, however generous and sensible are the arrangements about the staffs now employed by the development corporations, they will have to dispense


and intend to dispense with the services of a good many members of the staffs. Have the Government realised that had they been a little more forthcoming regarding the creation of further new towns there would have been a continuous useful employment ahead of many of these people?
Ths Chair has been very indulgent to me throughout this debate and I have tried not to abuse that indulgence. But the matter is of very great importance both to the dwellers in the new towns and to the future of local government as a whole. By no means least it is important to the staffs now employed by the development corporations. I trust, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will feel it right to extend equal indulgence to the Parliamentary Secretary so that the House may be informed on these matters.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: My intervention will be very brief. We are all obliged to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and to the Opposition for praying against this Order. As the hon. Member rightly said, the Order is of very considerable importance in what I regard as one of the great social experiments of the time. I certainly am not prepared to adopt such a narrow and bigoted view as to withhold from the party opposite their very considerable share of the credit.
I am proud, to share with one or two of my hon. Friends the privilege of representing a new town. I represent what is possibly the youngest of the new towns, namely, Bracknell. Though I realise that the hon. Gentleman was merely quoting from The Times—and what he said was by way of an aside—it is worth recalling the all the London overspill new towns are represented by hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. That, perhaps, disposes of the view expressed earlier about the local authorities.
While keeping strictly and resolutely in order, I wish to suggest to my hon. Friend at least one reason why he should stick firmly to the date of 1st October. Admittedly, my new town will not be affected by this Order for some considerable time. Only yesterday my right hon. Friend made an announcement which

means that it is to be doubled in size. That was a very welcome announcement. But in dealings with the staff of development corporations, and in talks with my hon. Friends representing Crawley and Hemel Hempstead, I have found—it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) will confirm this—that among the staffs of those corporations, including even the staff of my own new town which has some years of work ahead, there is a considerable doubt about the future, and the firm coming into force of this Order will do a great deal to remove that doubt. I believe that is a very good reason for the selection of this date. I am dealing exclusively and directly with the date, 1st October. I believe that any further delay, any further prevarication, would lead to additional lack of continuity within the corporations' staffs to whom, as the hon. Member for Fulham so rightly said, we owe a very great debt for the work they have done.
You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were very indulgent to the hon. Member and he pleaded that you should be equally indulgent to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I must not seek to stray out of order, but he sought to introduce into the argument, and you allowed him briefly to develop it, the view that there was something undemocratic and undesirable about an Order which on 1st October seeks to bring into effect the New Towns Commission. The hon. Member, as always, argued his case with lucidity. I can tell him that I made a particular point in the new town which I represent of placing very clearly before the electorate of that town—it is a small one at the moment—the particular and narrow point we are arguing tonight. I believe he genuinely misunderstands the temper of the inhabitants of new towns if he supposes that they want to become tenants of a council house town.
With due respect to those many people for whom it is right that the country should provide council houses, I say that the predominantly young people now inhabiting these wonderful new social experiments want, frankly, to do better than that. As I say this, I realise that I am liable to misconstruction and that I might appear to be pouring odium on council house tenants as such. That is far from


my thought, but these are new experiments with young people of the modern generation and the old shibboleths and solutions of council house towns will not do. I went out of my way to explain this in detail. I am satisfied that within the context of 1st October—which you, Sir, are about to remind me is the Order we are discussing—they had no doubt that this is what they wanted to do.

Mr. Albert Evans: In this rather interesting discussion with his electors, did the hon. Member put before them the choices, one, that they might be tenants of the local council, two, that they might be tenants of a local development corporation and, three, that they might be tenants of a Commission controlling the whole of the the new towns and with its seat in London?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I do not think that is in order.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is most regrettable, but I must instantly obey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) will do me the honour of discussing it with me on a more convivial occasion when I can give him the background, but the short answer is, yes.
I realise that in the discharge of your duty to the House you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have to keep us within very

narrow limits, which makes it difficult to discuss this matter as we would wish, but I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Fulham that in relation to the Commission which by this Order, if it is not successfully prayed against. is to come into force on 1st October, he was not entirely fair—unwittingly I feel sure—to the local bodies which will be subsidiary to the Commission which is affected by this Order.
I realise that they are not elected bodies, but, after all, it is the intention of the Minister that the Commission, which comes into force by this Order, shall include the chairman or other representative of each of the new towns. He stated publicly that the local bodies shall be as widely representative of the life of that town as he can make it. I hope he will resist any attempt to make the local authority representatives elected representatives. I believe that they will be better able to discharge their duties as nominated members. I am precluded from developing that theme only by the look of disapproval which is now apparent on your face, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Therefore, with some emphasis, I say to my hon. Friend, limiting myself, first, to the necessity for an early decision, and second, to the general principles which I have sought to enunciate, that I hope he will resist the Motion which has been moved.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I have the honour to represent the division of Hemel Hempstead, but I have some difficulty to contend with in explaining that I am not solely the Member for that borough but, in fact, represent a very much wider area. Nevertheless, in Hemel Hempstead we have one of the two new towns which are chiefly affected by this Order, which, in April next year, will come under the New Towns Commission. This is a very great experiment, and one which we earnestly want to succeed. We have the great benefit in Hemel Hempstead of being an extremely old borough. Henry VIII gave its charter to Hemel Hempstead. It might well have had it before, but, nevertheless, it got it only a matter of 400-odd years ago.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how that is relevant to this Order.

Mr. Allason: I will pass rapidly from that point to my particular point, which is that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that the local authorities were not capable of carrying out certain functions which would pass to them from the organisation which will be set up under this Order. I wanted to dispel that idea, because we have a truly efficient organisation in Hemel Hempstead, at least. One of the three points which the hon. Member for Fulham particularly made concerned social amenities, and he said that they could not be carried out by local committees and would not be satisfactorily carried out by the New Towns Commission. I suggest that they can be very efficiently carried out by any efficient borough council.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am interested in the point which the hon. Gentleman is making, and I agree with him. The hon. Gentleman says that the local councils could provide these amenities, but how can they when the Chancellor has announced today a reduction in loan sanctions for local authorities?

Mr. Allason: I doubt if the councils have had time to do their arithmetic, but my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that this is only a very temporary measure in regard to Bank Rate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that we cannot go into the question of the Bank Rate.

Mr. M. Stewart: In view of the comment made by the hon. Member, would it not be in order to argue that the date should not be 1st October but rather such date as the Bank Rate comes down again?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members can argue against the Order or for it. but not for an amendment.

Mr. Allason: Returning to the points made by the hon. Member for Fulham, there was also the question of responsibility for housing and natural development and also that of providing jobs, particularly for school leavers. These are two points which, quite clearly, concern something which can be forecast. They are not matters of day-to-day administration, but can clearly be forecast, and therefore, can reasonably be left to the New Towns Commission. The Commission for the New Towns, which will come into being on 1st October, will be capable of forecasting general trends and will therefore be able to make proper arrangements.
It is very doubtful if it is necessary for local committees to be elected. The hon. Member for Fulham said that they must be democratically elected. I hope that I am still in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was refraining from interrupting. I was going to interrupt in about one minute's time.

Mr. Allason: I am merely trying to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Fulham. He said that he was worried that local committees would be undemocratic. I remind the House that the Commissioners of Crown Lands have been with us for many years and they are not unreasonable landlords. The Church Commissioners have been with us for many years and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said, people are happy and proud to be the tenants of such extremely reasonable landlords.

Mr. James MacColl: I am a tenant of the Church Commissioners,


and I assure the hon. Member that I would rather be the tenant of a dozen borough councils.

Mr. Allason: I should stray far from the point if I followed that up. A little question of subsidy comes in. I will not strain your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by straying on to that point. We have this system of absentee landlords, but it has worked well in this country so far, and I believe that it will work well now.
I am particularly concerned about the staff of development corporations. They have had very little warning of this change. We in Hemel Hempstead are particularly affected as one of the two towns which will so rapidly change their status. Their staffs have had little time to be warned of what will happen to them. It is a matter of grave concern to them that within a year they may be out of a job. It may be that they will be taken on by the local committees, but they do not even know that. I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend would tell us something about security of tenure or help for those members of the staff who will be displaced or who at any rate do not know anything about their future.

10.33 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The hon. Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) made it clear that his reason for arguing that there should be no postponement of the date, that 1st October was a proper and good date, and that the Parliamentary Secretary should rebut any arguments to the contrary was that the staffs of development corporations would and should know where they stand as soon as possible. He expressed deep concern about the staffs, as did the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). It is obviously true that they have been specially trained in work of this type, that they would not be easily replaced, and that if they are lost they will not easily be brought together again at any time in the future should they be needed for new experiments of this remarkable social type.
I felt that the hon. Member for Wokingham was pleading the exact opposite of what he wanted. If his argument he correct and his concern is well-placed, as I am sure it is, surely

my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is right when he says that this is not the correct date but that it should be later in order that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should have an opportunity to reconsider not only what is to happen in this transition stage, not only what is ultimately to be the end result, but also—and this is the important point—whether there will be a declaration about further new towns so that the staffs should know where they were and could be absorbed. They would know that they would not be dispersed and that they could continue, if not in one place, in another which has not yet been decided.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I understand, though I do not necessarily agree with, that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument which relates to those who have been concerned with development. After all, there are a large number of staffs who are concerned with what I might term management. New towns do not necessarily refer to them. The point of this Order is that it gives that part of the staff in particular a certainty which I would have thought they had not got up to now.

Dr. Stross: It would seem that at least we are all equally concerned to do the right thing by these people who work so well and ably for the new towns. We are all concerned that any of them who are perturbed now should know what their future is to be, and it would seem that we are divided on the question of the date. 1st October.
I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham received very courteous treatment from the Chair, and, having listened to him, I am keeping strictly in order. Concerned as we are, we are divided only by the fact that there is some disagreement as to which would be the best way to help these people and give them reassurance.
One minor point is the question of the local committees which it is proposed should be appointed by the Commission as from 1st October. The question is, should it be 1st October or later? Is it not possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham is right and that there should be an opportunity between 1st October and, say, 1st December, which he suggested as an


alternative date, for some new thinking on this question of the local committees? If that were so, then stage 3 of handing over fully to local authorities could be brought nearer. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give some heed to our feelings about these small but very important matters.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I am sure that what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Dr. Stross) has just said, that we are all concerned to see that the greatest possible help is given to the new towns, is true.
These new towns, one of which I am privileged to have in my constituency, Basildon, are bubbling with vitality and life. Like all new developments of this kind, they need a sense of stability and certainty. It is because I sense, as I am sure many hon. Members do, the need in these new towns for a progressive and certain view of the future that I urge the House to support this Order which will put the date at 1st October this year.
I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), that the staffs of the corporations of these new towns should be very seriously considered. They are people who have shown a devoted—one is tempted to say a dedicated—sense of duty over the years in which these new towns have been developed and they deserve to have their futures considered when we come to the question of appointing the Commission.
Of course, one of the big advantages of having an early and a final date is that we should have the time, which we shall have between now and 1st October, to see that the Commission is properly appointed, and I have no doubt, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without, I hope, going outside the narrow limits of this debate, that what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has said is true, that these people in the new towns want to find themselves with a settled and certain future as soon as possible. I believe that this Order is a material and progressive step towards that end.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I am not sure that the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) is right when he suggests that the passing of this Order will bring to the minds of the staffs of the development corporations a sense of certainty and settlement. Actually, of course, the setting up of the Commission will again disturb the peace of mind of the staff of every development corporation in the country because, as we know, the setting up of the Commission is the first step towards the liquidation of the development corporations and to the scattering of their staffs in, possibly, many directions.

Mr. Gardner: May I just explain that when I referred to certainty and stability these were advantages which I envisaged would be enjoyed by the people of the new towns, not necessarily by the staffs. I was asking my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if he could give some assurance that the interests of the staffs of the corporations could also be looked at.

Mr. Evans: We all agree, of course, that the staffs should be properly cared for and that the termination of their services should be accompanied with as generous treatment as possible. The hon. and learned Member was not a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill which is now the Act, but I think that I am within the bounds of order in informing him that we on this side of the House did our utmost in that Committee to secure that the staffs were protected when the development corporations were swallowed up and their assets handed over to the Commission.
We know that in bringing this Order before the House the Minister is acting under the provisions of the Act. We know that Section 2 (12) of the Act provides that the Commission shall come into being on such date as the Minister may by Order appoint. The Minister is doing that. He has mentioned 1st October in the Order. Suppose, however, that he did not simply think out the date of 1st October. It probably is not his birthday or a red-letter day for him. We must presume that he has good and adequate reasons for choosing that date. Those reasons must have


some connection with the state of advancement of the development of some of the new towns.
Presumably, the Minister is not bringing the Commission into being on 1st October for no reason at all. He and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must know that one at least of the new town development corporations is nearing the end of the work that was assigned to them by the Minister at the time. It would have been more helpful had the Minister laid before Parliament details of those development corporations which are nearing the end of their work, so that we could more fittingly judge whether the date of 1st October is suitable.
We are rather in the dark about this. We do not know the ground upon which the Minister chooses 1st October and not another date. I am surprised that the Minister failed to tell us in advance that the development corporation at Crawley or elsewhere had nearly finished its work. In his intervention, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the names of one or two corporations and said that they would finish their work by 1st April next.
The Commission can have no function until one at least of the development corporations has finished its work. It begins to operate only when the assets of one at least of the corporations is handed over to it to manage. Although it is rather late in our discussion, we hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us detailed information about which of the new towns are nearing completion.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us to what extent the new towns are short of their optimum population, what provision is yet to be made to ensure an adequacy of housing accommodation for all the people in the new towns and what provision is being made by the development corporation which will be handed over to the Commission for housing the growing part of the population which will soon become adult and require its own houses. I also hope that he will assure us, in regard to those corporations which are finishing their work, that all has been done that is required to be done in the development of the new town in the

way of amenities, facilities for social life, and so on.
We are entitled to know tonight which of the development corporations is now ripe to go over to the Commission, because it will have no function unless one at least of the corporations goes over to it. We are entitled to be told which of the corporations is finishing its work and to be assured that that work is complete, that the end of the corporation's work is satisfactory and that the new town will be complete by 1st April next when it is handed over to the Commission.
I think I shall be in order in asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say something about the length of life of the Commission—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that arises on this Order.

Mr. Evans: We are not appointing the Commission tonight, but we are giving the Minister power to set it up and to appoint its members. One would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would be in a position to tell us something about the periods of appointment of members so that we should get a better idea of what the House is agreeing to. I agree that the Order is very short. It is so short that if one were to keep strictly to its terms one would talk about 1st October and not 1st September, and that would be the end of the discussion.
I trust that you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that with the setting up of the Commission it would be normal Parliamentary practice to ask something about the terms of the appointments. I think it is in order for me to put these questions to the Parliamentary Secretary about the membership of the Commission and for how long the members will be appointed. The Minister is on record as having said that the Commission will last 10, 15 or 20 years; he has stated that on more than one occasion. At the end of the period, whatever it may be, we shall come to the time when Parliament will have to decide what the ultimate future of the new towns is to be.
As has been mentioned, the taking over of the new towns by the Commission is merely one phase in the process of settling the future of the new


towns, and it will not be until the Commission has run its time and done its work and been dissolved that the House will decide the final and most satisfactory form of organisation for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham dwelt on this point. It is well known that the two sides of the House take contrary views on whether or not the new towns should be under municipal control, but it is clear from what the Minister has said on previous occasions that the setting up of the Commission on 1st October is not the final decision about the ultimate form of organisation of the new towns. I am sure that we shall bear that in mind and that when the time comes and the Commission is dissolved—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this. It is beyond the Order.

Mr. Evans: I am just concluding, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have only three or four more words. Only when the Commission has run its course will the House be in a position to decide whether or not these magnificent new towns, created as a result of the initiative of the Labour Government, will be under municipal control and management.

10.54 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I am grateful for the opportunity of giving the House some information about this most important matter. I will try to answer all the questions that have been asked, except for one—the question posed by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) about the alternatives that were theoretically before the House when the New Towns Act, 1959, was passed. As has been pointed out, what we are discussing here is merely the date when the Commission for the New Towns, which was laid down by that Act, is to be set up, and, therefore, it is not open to me to discuss the alternatives that were then available but are no longer available.
It is true that, as the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said, there will come a time when the further stage for the new towns will arrive, a stage when they are indistinguishable from normal towns. But we

cannot now decide what the proper pattern for the management of those towns will be then. I shall seek to say no more about that at the moment, except to reassure the hon. Member for Fulham and his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that there is absolutely no intention whatever that the Commission should go in for any sort of wholesale disposal of assets. When the time comes for a decision about the final stage for the management of these new towns, obviously a policy will have to be proposed to Parliament. New legislation will be involved, and that now legislation will not be prejudiced by any wholesale disposal of the assets in the meanwhile.
I should like to start, as was so rightly suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West, by explaining that the date of 1st October for the setting up of the Commission for the Now Towns was reached by working backwards from the date when, the Commission believes, new towns—in this case two—will have finished the development chapter of their lives. The two new towns concerned are Hemel Hempstead and Crawley, and their main development stage will have come to an end by about the spring of next year.
The House may like to know that by that date Crawley will have a population of about 55,000 of its ultimate target population of 75,000 and Hemel Hempstead will have a population of about the same size out of an ultimate target population of 80,000. The House scarcely needs me to remind it that the gap in population will, of course, be accounted for over the years by the natural increase stemming from the existing population of the new towns. That is why, although there is still development to be done, housing and some additional amenities to be provided, and employment found for the new population, it is nevertheless true that the main development phase in these two towns will by then be about complete.
Obviously, the Commission for the New Towns will need at least some months to familiarise itself with its task, to gather together what will in the first place be a very small headquarters staff, to set up its office and its form of accounts and to arrange its procedure and pattern of delegation. For all that


preparatory work, six months is by no means too long. That is why my right hon. Friend suggests 1st October for the setting up of the Commission.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West also asked about membership. The Act provides for a membership of up to 15. but that looks forward to a time when there is a large number of new towns under the wing of the Commission, and it is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention that for as long as possible the Commission shall be as small and as workmanlike a body as is compatible with the range of experience which will be needed upon that.
The actual names of the chairman and the deputy-chairman and the terms and conditions of employment are under consultation at this moment, and T have no announcement to make an behalf of my right hon. Friend; but I know that it is his intention that on the Commission there shall be a representative of each new town taken over and, so far as possible, by that means or another, someone experienced in financial affairs and someone experienced in estate management.
As several hon. Members have said, especially the hon. Member for Fulham, the Commission will have to handle what are essentially local matters, but I remind the House that by Section 2 (2) of the Act and certainly by the intent of my right hon. Friend the Commission will bear in mind the purposes for which the new towns were set up and the interests of their inhabitants. We can therefore count on the Commission being a sympathetic body.
My right hon. Friend accepts that the Commission will in fact he a very large landlord, but he expects that it will act as a first-class landlord working to the very highest of standards. As for the handling of local matters, the Commission will no doubt conduct much of its business by delegation. The Act requires that it must manage the houses in the new towns by way of local committees and may delegate to those local committees any of the day-to-day business it thinks proper. What it thinks proper is essentially for the Commission to decide, but my right hon. Friend hopes that in its nominations to the local committees—and I remind the House that it is bound

to consult local authorities before making nominations to my right hon. Friend for his confirmation—it will heed the advice given it by local authorities and that one or more members of the local committees will be chosen from names suggested by local authorities. My right hon. Friend also hopes that the local committees will maintain some sort of continuity, however partial, with the existing new town development corporations.
I was asked to guarantee that there will be no lack of power to provide housing for the increase of population in the new towns which will be taken over. I can certainly guarantee that. The Commission will have power to provide housing, if necessary. If necessary the local authorities concerned will be able to provide housing. I say "if necessary" because what these communities have in abundance is subsidised housing, and it may well be that the need—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Minister is going far beyond the Order.

Sir K. Joseph: I was seeking to answer questions, but I will pass to the question asked by most hon. Members, which was about the staff. My hon. Friends the Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), Billericay (Mr. Gardner) and Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), and the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and Fulham spoke feelingly and appreciatively about the work of the staff and were most anxious that they should know their prospects and be given as much security as possible. When an Order is made under the Act bringing a new town under the Commission—and it is proposed that Orders will be made for Crawley and Hemel Hempstead about the spring of next year—the staff of those development corporations automatically become the staff of the Commission. It is not expected that the establishment of the Commission will itself create any immediate redundancy. The Commission will have only a very small headquarters staff, and all the work being carried out by the development corporation will carry on just as at present, though under the direction of the Commission, which will simply step into the shoes of the development corporation.
The whole subject of the future of the staff has been discussed with the appropriate Whitley Council, and the result of those discussions has been communicated to the development corporations and through them has been made known, or shortly will be made known, to the staff concerned.
The prospects of the staff are essentially matters for the Commission but because, obviously, the staff of Hemel Hempstead and Crawley are anxious to know what those prospects are, my right hon. Friend has anticipated the setting up of the Commission and has made at least short-term arrangements about the staff of those two new town development corporations. All the staff of those two new towns have been guaranteed that they will be given at least twelve months' notice. All the staff of those new towns have been guaranteed that no notice will be given before the end of 1961. All the routine management and maintenance men of those two staffs have been guaranteed that no notice will be given before the end of 1964.
We must leave it to the Commission, working on principles already discussed with the Whitley Council, to inform the staff of other new towns nearer the time when they may be taken over, which is not in the immediate future, about their prospects. I hope that I have explained to the House fully the answers to the questions which were asked me and have explained why—

Mr. Joseph Slater: How many members will form the Commission? I have an interest in the question of new towns.
As regards the new towns of Newton Aycliffe and Peterlee in the County of Durham, will a member of the Commission be appointed to the local committee of each town to look after its interests?

Sir K. Joseph: As a new town is taken over, it is intended that a representative of that new town development corporation will join the Commission. It is normally likely that that representative will become the chairman of the local committee of that new town.
I was explaining that in the first instance my right hon. Friend hopes to keep the Commission very small and workman-

like. I hope that I have answered all the questions, and that this Prayer will not be pressed.

11.05 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The Parliamentary Secretary has not convinced me. But that is perhaps not surprising, because I am against the Commission coming into being on 1st October of this year or any other year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot argue that now.

Mr. Reynolds: I have no intention of arguing that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am merely stating a fact. It does not need argument. It is so obvious that it does not have to be argued. The Bill has gone through, and we are, therefore, in a position to discuss only this Order tonight.
The date of 1st October has been chosen because, as the Minister said, it is estimated that by early spring of next year these two towns will be ripe to be handed over to the Commission. He said that in Crawley there was a population of 55,000, or there would be about that time, out of an expected total of 75,000, and that in Hemel Hempstead there was a population of 55,000 out of an expected total of 80,000.
The population of Crawley is expected to increase by 20,000, presumably spread over about 15 or 20 years. This will come about by natural growth as well as by a number of people coming in from outside. The population of Hemel Hempstead is expected to increase by about 50 per cent. of the existing population. I cannot accept that at this stage in the development of a new town the direction of it should be taken away from the development corporation intimately connected with the town and handed over to what the Parliamentary Secretary said would be a very large landlord. I go further and say that it will be an absentee landlord, a remote landlord, which will not be able to bring to the development of towns like Crawley and Hemel Hempstead the originality and single-mindedness which the development corporations have been able to bring to them by being on the spot.
I do not think that the time has come when we should take the development and expansion of Crawley and Hemel


Hempstead away from those towns and put them in. the hands of a body which has other responsibilities and which will be situated somewhere in London. A few more years ought to go by—

Mr. Martin Maddan: The implication of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that instead of leaving the natural growth of these towns to be taken care of under the supervision of the local authorities and the local planning authorities, they should be regulated by the Commission from Whitehall. Apparently the hon. Gentleman prefers that even during the period of natural increase.

Mr. Reynolds: Completely the opposite. I want the new town development corporations, which have so far successfully developed Hemel Hempstead and Crawley, to be allowed to carry on that job for a few years.

Mr. Maddan: The development corporations are responsible to my right hon. Friend in Whitehall, not to the local authorities.

Mr. Reynolds: The new town development corporations have offices in the towns. They meet there regularly. They are in day-to-day contact with the local authorities. They employ rent collectors, and other social workers in the towns. They run housing lists for accommodation in the towns, and those bodies should carry on doing that work for some time. The time is not ripe to hand that work over to a central organisation which will have offices in London and which will not have the day-to-day contact and the day-to-day experience of the towns which the development corporations have at present. I am not so sure that the time will ever come for them to be handed over to this type of commission. but I am certain that the present moment is too early for that transfer to take place.
Having said that, I go on to say that I am surprised that we should be discussing this Order tonight. I notice that it was first laid on 22nd June—about five weeks ago. Things were rather different then. But we have been told today that, amongst other things, all our embassies throughout the world will be sacking their office boys and cutting down their garden parties in order to save money—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise on this Order.

Mr. Reynolds: I submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that money is involved in setting up this new Commission. Up to 15 members can be appointed, and they are all going to be paid, by the Minister, under paragraph 7 of the First Schedule,
such remuneration in respect of that office as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that negotiations are still in progress as to the number of members to be appointed and the salaries to be paid to them. Not only has a salary to be paid to the chairman and the deputy-chairman, and such members as may be appointed—and we can safely assume that there will be five appointed in the beginning, giving a total of at least seven to start with—but this money must be voted by this House. There is also to be a staff taken on. The Minister said that it would be a small staff, but these things have a habit of blossoming out. Offices must also be found in London for the Commission to hold its meetings. There will be travelling expenses for the staff and members of the Commission billeted in the new towns. This must add up to a substantial amount of money.
It is suggested that this amount of money should be incurred, completely unnecessarily, on the same day that we have been told that all our embassies throughout the world will have to look at their expenditure and cut it by 10 per cent.—presumably by sacking the office boy at the embassy in Montevideo, and cutting down the number of garden parties at the embassy in Rome, in order to find the money to appoint a chairman, deputy-chairman and commissioners to look after new towns in this country.
This Order was originally laid before the House when the Government were still under the impression that the majority of people in this country had never had it so good and that everything was going so well that we could afford the extra £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 that the Commission will cost, but circumstances have changed rapidly in the last five weeks. We have had a second Budget today, and will spend two days discussing the expenditure of money and cuts in Government expenditure, and I must point out that we could save some money and take


some of the burden from the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by not bothering to set up this Commission on 1st October, as the Order enables the Minister to do.
If we are now in the middle of another financial crisis we should not go blithely ahead setting up commissions to do unnecessary jobs, or jobs which are being done adequately by bodies which already exist.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: The hon. Member for Islington. North (Mr. Reynolds) was wide of the mark in two respects. First, when 1st October comes and the Commission is set up, it will be the beginning of the running down of the existing development corporations, particularly Crawley and Hemel Hempstead—

Mr. Reynolds: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maddan: The hon. Member shakes his head, but what is all the fuss about existing staffs if it is not clear that as the development stage begins to come to an end the corporations will begun to run down? The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) treated us to a repetition of some speeches we had in Committee in the last Parliament, pointing to the need to preserve the interests of the staffs.

Mr. A. Evans: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had listened he would know that I did not quote any such speeches.

Mr. Maddan: With your sharp ears, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will remember that the hon. Member referred to those speeches and said that a special effort was made on behalf of the staff. When the function of rapid development changes and eventually comes to an end, and a new disposition of people is made, it is not necessary that the State should go on employing people unnecessarily. They would not wish to be so employed. They would be idle, which is not good for them or for the taxpayers. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has tried to relate all this to garden parties in Montevideo—

Sir K. Joseph: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, I would say that the vast majority of routine management staff

will be needed for the new town whether it be run by the Commission or by the Development Corporation.

Mr. Maddan: Yes, but what will not be necessary will be the development staff.
The second point is that the hon. hon. Member for Islington, North talks about the time of natural growth as being a time when the development corporation continues in operation, but the longer it is in operation the longer is the situation perpetuated whereby the new town continues to be a rather special subject of an unusual nature, not integrated into the normal life of the country. It is still a place which has not taken upon itself the mantle of an ordinary, normal town.
As has been said tonight, the existence of the Commission at a time when the period of rapid development has come to an end provides the means for tiding over to the time when these towns cease to be "new" and different from other towns. The hon. Member for Islington, North seems to me to want to perpetuate the present artificial situation. It may be all right now while the period of rapid development is still going on, but I think we shall find that after lst October not only will more new towns be coming under the wing of the Commission, but more new towns will be designated.
The setting up of this Commission is a logical step in the process of making the new towns into ordinary towns, which certainly was the purpose envisaged by those who first conceived them. I share hon. Members' enthusiasm for new towns. They represent a great experiment, and I hope there will be more of them!

11.19 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having made it possible for us to have a full discussion on this Prayer. In particular, we are pleased to have extracted two very important statements from the Parliamentary Secretary: first, that there is no intention of disposing of the assets by the Commission within the life of the Commission; and, secondly, unlike the rather cold-blooded and even truculent attitude in evidence when the Bill was passing through the House, the staff, as a result of pressure brought to bear


upon the Government, apparently is to have adequate promises made to help them. Unfortunately, as so often happens in such cases, the time is now too late; the damage to morale has already been done.
Although you have been generous to us and allowed us to have a wide debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we cannot help feeling that what happens when we discuss Orders is very different from what happens when these matters are discussed when Bills go through Standing Committees. We are always told when a Bill goes through Committee that we need not worry, that there has to be an Order, that we shall be able to have a Prayer, and that we need not discuss the matter in Committee because we shall be able to discuss it fully later. However, when we are faced with Orders our experience is that it is only with the greatest kindness and co-operation from the Chair that we are able to have any kind of tolerable discussion.
There are two reasons why we should not fix a date. The effect of defeating the Order would be that a date would not be fixed. That would not wreck anything. It would simply mean that for all new towns the same arrangements would go on as will in any case go on for the majority of them, namely that corporations will continue to run them satisfactorily and economically as at present. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) that this is not the time to make a sudden administrative change of this sort. It is not the time to start setting up new bodies when a body already exists with experience and staff. There is bound to be a waste of manpower if a transfer of this sort is made at the moment. To make this change at present will be completely inconsistent with what was said earlier this afternoon.
The other reason why it is desirable not to make the change immediately is that the later the date fixed for setting up the Commission the more likely it is that the corporation can proceed with the assimilation of its housing with that of the local authorities. I completely disagree with what the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said. The indication seems to be that there is something non-U about being a council tenant and that people in the new towns do not want to be council tenants. That

is nonsense. The fact that a new town resident becomes a tenant of the council does not even mean that he necessarily gets a subsidy. There is no real reason why new town residents should not become blended into the new town. It is mischievous to try deliberately to provoke snobbish distinctions between those new town residents who are owner-occupiers, those who have the State as their landlord, and those who have the local authority as their landlord. The only effect of this will be to damage the social development of new towns. I entirely dissent from this attitude.
I did not gather that there was any suggestion that the people who found it rather socially humiliating to have a local authority as a landlord would be landed with a private landlord. From that point of view we are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. That is something, at any rate. We gather that the choice is between one kind of public landlord and another.

Sir K. Joseph: I was called to order just as I was about to explain that the Commission will certainly hope that many of the houses that are needed will be built by private enterprise.

Mr. George Brown: After this afternoon's announcement?

Mr. MacColl: I do not know where they will get their finance from. I am not clear now what the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us about the procedure. This is relevant to the Order, because it is relevant to the question whether the Corporation or the Commission is to make the decision. That is fixed by the date on which the Commission comes into being. Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that houses will be built for owner-occupation, or is it intended to sell off chunks of land to development operators to start private landlords—

Mr. Speaker: I have been blamed for allowing the House to have a wide debate on this issue. I am not with the hon. Gentleman in understanding how this matter can possibly arise on the Order.

Mr. MacColl: If it is due to any halting words of mine, Mr. Speaker, I will respectfully and humbly try to rephrase them, if I may be allowed to do so.
May I put it in this way? The point is that the choice before us is the date. The date determines whether or not the corporation continues or whether or not a new body takes over. Therefore, it is vitally important to know whether or not we ought to allow the Commission to be formed and to know whether the Commission will adopt a different policy from that of the corporation. However, I will not develop that point any further.
I will only say that I feel that the case for having this precipitate date

for setting up this Commission, the case for having it set up and presumably its composition announced before the House meets again, is something with which those of us who watch the new towns carefully and anxiously will not wish to be associated, and we shall wish to express our dissent from the proposal.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 182.

Division No. 258.]
AYES
(11.26 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Albu, Austen
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Jay, Rt. Hon, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Awbery, Stan
Johnson., Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blackurn, F.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, William
Kelley, Richard
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
King, Dr. Horace
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Skeffington, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Logan, David
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R, W.


Cliffe, Michael
MacColl, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Grossman, R. H. S.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda. E.)
Manuel, A. C.
Stones, William


Davids, Hsrold (Leek)
Mapp, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Marsh, Richard
Stross, Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dempsey, James
Mendelson, J. J.
Sylvester, George


Diamond, John
Milne, Edward J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Moyle, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert
Neal, Harold
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, Harold
Oram, A. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor


Forman, J. C.
Owen, Will
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galpern, Sir Myer
Paget, R. T.
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T,
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Woof, Robert


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur



Hilton, A. V.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Houghton, Douglas
Randall, Harry
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Redhead, E. c.
Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H. P. G.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Allason, James
Chataway, Christopher
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Drayson, G. B.


Barter, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
du Cann, Edward


Bidgood, John C.
Cleaver, Leonard
Duncan, Sir James


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Eden, John


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, A. E.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Elliott,R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Box, Donald
Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.
Errington, Sir Eric


Boyle, Sir Edward
Cordle, John
Farr, John


Braine, Bernard
Corfield, F. V.
Fisher, Nigel


Brooman-White, R.
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Buck, Antony
Critchley, Julian
Foster, John


Bullard, Denys
Cunningham, Knox
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Curran, Charles
Gardner, Edward


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Currie, G. B. H.
George, J. C. (Pollok)




Gibson-Watt, David
Litchfield, Capt. John
Seymour, Leslie


Glover, Sir Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, M.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cower, Raymond
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Stodart, J. A.


Green, Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil
Talbot, John E.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.
Taylor, W J. (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton
Teeling, William


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, Gerald
Turner, Colin


Hobson; John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Holland, Philip
Noble, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hollingworth, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hopkins, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hornby, R. P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W,)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Walder, David


Howard, Hon. G R. (St. Ives)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter


Hughes-Young, Michael
Peel, John
Wall, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, Sir James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jackson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith
Whitelaw, William


Jennings, J, c.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior, J. M. L,
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pym, Francis
Wise, A. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woodhouse, C. M.


Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Hugh
Woodnutt, Mark


Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Woollam, John


Leavey, J. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)



Lilley, F. J. P.
Roots, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lindsay, Martin
Russell, Ronald
Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James

COAL (CYNHEIDRE AND ABERNANT MINES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Donald Box: I am glad to have this opportunity for a short debate on the question of capital investment in the anthracite mines at Cynheidre and Abernant. I should explain that for some time past rumours have been circulating in parts of South Wales that all was not going according to plan at these two collieries. To ascertain the position, I decided to try to put down Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in the normal way, but owing to the regulations regarding nationalised industries and Questions I found that this was not possible and that I should have to get the information from the National Coal Board instead.
As a result, I addressed exactly similar questions that I had wanted to put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to Lord Robens, Chairman of the National Coal Board, little thinking that in so doing I should be disturbing something of a hornets' nest, for since I received what turned out to be a forthright and revealing reply from the Chairman of the Coal Board I have received a number of letters and messages of encouragement from West Wales, on the one hand, and a certain amount of criticism from political and National Coal Board sources, on the other hand.
The first criticism came from the Chairman of the South-Western region of the Coal Board, who appeared with me on a television programme. He pointed out that he did not know what qualifications I had to deal with mining. It was also suggested that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made similar comments, but I understand that they were the result of a misunderstanding. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree


that if we had to have specialist qualifications before putting Questions or making comments on various subjects, we should have great difficulty in pursuing our normal Parliamentary duties. I freely admit that I have no mining qualifications, but neither, as far as I am aware, has Lord Robens, who, after all, is Chairman of the Coal Board.
The second criticism came from the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). I am sorry that she is not here this evening. I wrote reminding her of this debate, but I understand that she was detained for an engagement in Wales. In a recent speech, the hon. Lady described my inquiries as a "rash and ill-advised intervention". At a later stage, she invited me to withdraw what she then described as
these wild statements which he has made without any justification".
I find both of the hon. Lady's accusations rather bewildering in the light of the facts contained in the letter from the Chairman of the National Coal Board.
This is a three-paragraph letter. The first paragraph deals with the capital authorisations of nearly £13½ million for Cynheidre and nearly £9½ million for Abernant. The third paragraph deals with the production target of Abernant and says something of the expectation of production this year. I will refer to that later. I wish at this stage to draw the attention of hon. Members to the second paragraph, which states:
Cynheidre is more advanced in its development and we expect it to produce some 150,000 tons of anthracite this year. Although the original scheme and authorisation of expenditure was based on an output of 1 million tons a year, the difficult geological conditions have led us to review the commitment and to reduce the immediate objective for this new colliery to 550,000 tons a year. It is possible, however, that more favourable conditions will allow us at a later date to expand the output of the colliery to something nearer the original intention.
I cannot for the life of me see why when I express concern, first, that the target of I million tons, on which a capital expenditure of some £13½ million was authorised, has been slashed by half, and, second, when the actual amount of anthracite that it is expected to produce this year amounts to only a fraction—just over one quarter, to be exact—of the reduced target figure, I should be

accused of making wild statements without any justification.
I submit that they are not wild statements. On the contrary, they are statements of fact, and there is every justification for concern, the more so because, unlike loans to the private section of industry, to which the hon. Lady also referred—Cunard, Richard Thomas, and Colviltes—all of which have been the subject of lengthy and hotly contested debates, followed by a vote, on the Floor of the House, capital sums expended by the National Coal Board, I believe, are authorised under the Coal Mining Industry Act, 1956, and, therefore, do not come before hon. Members for their close scrutiny and debate.
By far the most disturbing feature of all this, in my opinion, is that several of my correspondents from West Wales with wide experience of mining maintain that the Cynheidre project, as an economic proposition, was doomed to failure from the start—

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Box: I will give way in a moment. These correspondents also maintain that the warnings of the wise old men of mining were ignored when they referred to the geological difficulties in the area, and that I have only scratched on the surface in regard to wasteful expenditure by the National Coal Board in Wales.

Mr. Griffiths: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that since, first, Cynheidre is in my constituency, and, second, that I am an anthracite miner and have spent all my life in the coalfields, I have not had a single word from anyone, wise or otherwise, about this? I wonder why they wrote to him and not to me.

Mr. Box: I think the answer to that is in the publicity relating to this subject. I have a cutting here dated 7th April, 1956, which states that the right hon. Gentleman referred to a total aggregate output of 700,000 tons. If Abernant is to produce 720,000 tons and Cynheidre, on the reduced estimates, 550,000 tons, that is 1¼ million tons. So that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have had doubts about the situation as far back as that.
Anyway, I hope that these allegations are wrong, but I have an uneasy feeling that some of them at any rate are true, for certainly the reactions of senior Coal Board officials to my recent inquiries—which I can describe only as being rather like that of a patient when the dentist is drilling on a nerve—are not likely to inspire confidence in this direction.
The geological problems associated with the anthracite field in the area of Cynheidre and Abernant are already well known. The disturbance of the strata was referred to in a leaflet which the Coal Board issued on the Cynheidre project as far back as January, 1957, and it was given as the reason for the adoption of the horizon principle of mining, as it is called, which I believe is widely used on this project and other major projects throughout the South Wales coalfield.
I appreciate that these geological difficulties can be very considerable indeed, and that they may cause great variations in production, but is the Minister really satisfied that in the full knowledge that these difficulties existed, sufficient borehole drillings and tests were made before this expensive project was started, and, if he is, that the right conclusions were reached as a result? Does mining have to be such a hit-and-miss affair in this modern day and age?
It is common knowledge that, for example, production of coking coal at Nantgarw falls far below expectations which were current when the capital expenditure was authorised, but in the case of Cynheidre the significant fact is not so much the disappointing production figure which is expected this year, but rather the halving of the target, for if the original target had been 550,000 tons and not 1 million, presumably the scheme as we know it today would not have been authorised in the first place.
What we ought to be told is what circumstances made it necessary to reduce this target so drastically that this was taken. Quite obviously, in a new colliery like Cynheidre it will take time to reach the full production figure of 550,000 tons a year. The Divisional Chairman of the South-Western Region estimates that it will take at least two years. I shall be interested to know whether my hon. Friend agrees with that

estimate and what further capital expenditure he expects will be required before this full production is reached.
What are we to expect from Abernant? Capital expenditure was based on 720,000 tons a year. That, I am glad to say, is still the target, but I hope that this decision will not he adversely affected by the unexpected difficulties which my hon. Friend mentioned on his recent visit to Cardiff. Whether they do or not, it is obvious that the production of anthracite in South Wales will fall far below expectations over the next few years. How, then, is this deficiency to be made good?
I see from a cutting from last Friday's Western Mail that the National Coal Board has already authorised an increase in opencast mining for anthracite and coking coal in South Wales. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us whether he expects that supplies from opencast mining will be sufficient to bridge the gap and to keep our overseas customers happy in the meantime until Cynheidre and Abernant are in full production.
Then there is the all-important question of manpower, which is causing concern not only in South Wales but in other parts of the country. I am getting my share of the blame for that, too. I should point out, however, that the drift from the mines has been going on for some years now. It is not a new problem but it has certainly been aggravated by the wave of prosperity which we have experienced in Wales in the past couple of years. It is surely a matter of economics, but if by encouraging new industry to come to Wales we are responsible for creating a manpower shortage, then I must take my share of the blame, together with other hon. Members for Welsh constituencies, and not least the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is the last person who would want to see men obliged to work in the mines because no alternative jobs were available.
At a time when Government expenditure as a whole has to be contained, or even reduced, it is more than ever necessary that the nationalised industries, whose capital expenditure is not subject to Parliamentary control in the usual way, should be especially careful to avoid extravagance and waste. There are indications that something of this sort may have


been going on in South Wales coalfields in recent years. Tonight I have posed some of the questions that the people of South Wales are asking about this capital expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to put our minds at rest, but, if not, I hope that he will seriously consider whether a full inquiry should be made into the circumstances surrounding capital expenditure on these mines at Cynheidre and Abernant and elsewhere in South Wales.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I have given an assurance that I will be very brief in this intervention, but I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, because the Abernant Colliery is in my constituency. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) referred to rumours and expressions of opinion. The mining community which I represent is proud of the technical achievements at Abernant. The hon. Member dealt at some length with Cynheidre and made a brief reference to Abernant, and I will refer only to the latter. He referred to a discussion which he had on television with Mr. Kellett the South Western Division manager, but he has not told us something which Mr. Kellett said. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, he said that he did not have enough knowledge of the industry to draw the right conclusions from the information which he had received.
I put it to the hon. Member, with respect, whether he thinks that he is doing a service to the coal industry at this difficult moment by making the statements which he has made and casting any kind of doubt upon the successful conclusion of these projects. I will leave it there, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister's reply. I emphasise, however, the confidence of the mining community which I represent in the successful outcome of the projects at bath Cynheidre and Abernant. In conclusion, may I say that I deplore the hon. Member's action in bringing forward this matter without informing me that he intended to do so, since my constituency is affected, thus breaking a normal courtesy shown in this House.

11.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) for having forewarned me of some of the points which he has raised, and I am also grateful for the restraint with which he has handled a delicate matter of great importance not only in South Wales but elsewhere. A large sum of public money might be at risk, and it is right and proper that he should seek information. I will try to give him the fullest available information and will deal first with the direct questions which he put at the end of his speech.
The first was about the rephasing—not the slashing—of the target at Cynheidre from 1 million tons to 550,000 tons. This was decided early in 1960. To have any meaning, targets must cover only a few years. It was obvious early in 1960 that geological disturbances were certain to frustrate the original objective of 1 million tons in 1966. Psychologically, it was unwise to leave this original target alive. A figure of 550,000 tons by 1964 therefore substituted as a more realistic figure. But this substitution of a new short-term target does not mean the final abandonment of the original target, and the fact that the geological disturbances had been forecast, as my hon. Friend said, by wise old men—who always forecast difficulties in any new mining undertakings anywhere in Britain—does not mean that they should have been foreseen. Geological difficulties are not revealed in their entirety until the exploration is made. This is no condemnation of any of the planners employed by the National Coal Board.
My hon. Friend asked about the Abernant target. He mentioned that the original figure for Abernant remains. The difference is that we hoped for 720,000 tons by 1961. It is now forecast for 1964, with no change in total. I will deal with that later.
He asked about future capital expenditure. The further capital expenditure authorised for each colliery is: Abernant, a further £3 million, Cynheidre, a further —1·6 million. The last question was, how is the shortfall in output resulting from the unrealised expectations to be made up in the short and in the long term?


In the coming winter Cynheidre and Abernant will be producing at an annual rate of 200,000 tons; this is additional to last year's anthracite output. In addition, the National Coal Board is seeking to increase output from open-cast sources of anthracite. While little will be obtained this year, in 1962, open-cast, Cynheidre and Abernant should produce together 500,000 tons of new output. Both these collieries, plus open cast sites, should make a rising contribution to market supplies.
With regard to the long term prospects resulting from the alteration in target at Cynheidre, it is far too early to assume that Cynheidre will not move on from 550,000 tons in 1964 to higher outputs in later years. I re-emphasise that Abernant is expected to reach the original target in 1964.
I now turn to the broader questions which my hon. Friend raised—the soundness of both projects, whether they were wisely conceived, efficiently planned and executed, and what are their prospects of success.
We must look back to 1951. Then the shallow coals were nearing exhaustion but the demand for anthracite was rising. The reserves remaining were at great depths, requiring heavy capital expenditure. But the market could not be ignored and the employment of thousands was involved. The reserves of are the two proposed collieries a estimated to be 150 million tons of the finest, quality anthracite coal, enough to supply the nation with its demands for anthracite for 50 years at current consumption, I have tried to estimate the cash value of the reserves, and at modern prices I assess them at £800 million. The market, miners' jobs and immensely valuable reserves of the highest quality coal demanded that the development should proceed. Decisions were taken to develop both collieries, using the most modern techniques and equipment.
What has been the course of events since then? I will deal with the facts and not with rumours and old men's tales. Facts are all that count in serious issues such as this when charges are made against the National Coal Board and the people who do its planning.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Anonymous charges.

Mr. George: Cynheidre was approved by the National Coal Board in 1954 at an estimated capital expenditure of approximately £12¼ million. Previously, in June, 1951, the Board had given preliminary approval to a total of £7 million so that work could start on the sinking of the two new shafts. This was no more than a very approximate estimate made at the time when boring had not been completed.
This was in no way comparable with the firm estimate of £12¼ million in 1954, by which time rising prices had increased the expected cost of the two new shafts by £2½ million. As my hon. Friend perhaps knows, the scheme included the sinking of two new shafts to a depth of 800 yards, the deepening of an existing shaft, and the provision of surface buildings of the most modern type to handle the expected output.
Because difficult conditions were expected at the face, the method of mining had to be the most efficient devised by mining engineers to reduce the cost of transport of the coal from the face. The surface buildings had to be the most efficient obtainable to meet the cost of handling the coal at the surface, thereby equating the cost to something like an economic figure.
What has happened since then? Two new shafts were sunk as planned, and the development of the surface buildings has proceeded normally at Cynheidre. Underground development, however, encountered unusually difficult geological conditions which delayed the progress of the scheme and led to substantial increases in costs for this part of the work.
In the light of the conditions encountered underground, the Board revised the target to 550,000 tons in 1964, instead of 1,000,000 tons in 1966. The fact that geological difficulties were encountered is no condemnation of the planning. Mining cannot be, and is not a hit-and-miss game as my hon. Friend suggested. It is impossible, however, to so prove a deep coal field as to avoid the chance of geological difficulties being encountered. It is economically impossible, particularly in the case of anthracite, and in the difficult fields of South Wales and Scotland. They cannot be economically proved so as to avoid troubles when operations commence. Therefore, there is always a


risk. It is a risky venture at the best, and the fact that we have discovered the troubles here was not unexpected, and is the fault of no one. It does not represent a waste of capital assets by the Board. It does not mean, either, that the pit is condemned or doomed to failure. Almost any colliery of any size has had high outputs and low outputs. That is a characteristic of the mining industry. Cynheidre may come through to calmer waters and achieve the original purpose.
The Board believes that the geological proving was adequate under the circumstances. It had detailed information relating to the workings of old collieries round the field. The northern boundary is composed of a number of mines which have extracted the coal and have proved its existence and also proved the difficulties. They gave a good guide and a mass of information in relation to what could be expected at Cynheidre. But the Board was not content with that. It put down two deep and exploratory borings and brought in the Geological Survey to make a special examination and to collect all information in order to give the engineers a reasonable picture of what Cynheidre would look like after development. The Board is satisfied that the proving done was sufficient. The difficulties encountered were not unexpected. It has no doubt that this colliery will in future prove to be a good addition to the anthracite coalfields of South Wales.
Turning to Abernant, the picture is not so disturbing. This colliery was approved in 1953 at an estimated cost of 5¼ million. Now the full scheme is estimated to cost just over £8 million. Again, this consists of two deep shafts sunk to a depth of 880 yards. The target of 720,000 tons for 1961 has been altered, and is now 720,000 tons in 1964. The progress of the scheme has been excellent, but serious unexpected and perhaps unique difficulties have been met with in the shaft bottom. Excessive rock pressures not previously recorded have been encountered, and the massive excavations now necessary fora modern pit bottom have been pushed in to such an extent that they have had to be completely remade before a ton of coal could be produced. It must be appreciated that these happenings took a very long time to repair. In fact, the target

has been delayed by three years, mainly because of the excessive rock pressures which were entirely unexpected and almost unique.
This colliery has had no other deviation from its plan. It has had very little increase in capital expenditure from the estimated figure. Everything indicates that, as at Cynheidre, it is in a difficult geological field and will have these difficulties and troubles, but the Board is satisfied that it has used all sensible methods of proving the field. It has provided the best possible equipment on the surface and underground. It has designed the roadways in such a way as to make for economic working and thus counterbalance any troubles at the face. The Board is confident that this colliery, as in the case of Cynheidre, will prove to be an asset to the anthracite coalfields of South Wales, and it looks with confidence to its future.
My hon. Friend talked about extravagance. The new mining facilities on the surface, placed in an old coalfield, are such as have never been seen before, and they give the uninformed an impression of extravagance. But these new, majestic structures are essential if coal is to be handled efficiently and economically. They give the wrong impression, but time will show that the Board's actions are justified, and that the coal will be handled economically and treated in the best possible manner for the market. Underground, the new horizon method of mining is mystifying to the older miners. They are used to straight roads into the coal, and straight roads leading away. In Cynheidre there are fourteen miles of tunnel, and everything is changed. There is change on the surface and change underground, which confuses and bewilders those who have seen nothing like it before. It is quite wrong to attribute extravagance to the National Coal Board—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.